User talk:Tai Streets

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Izehar 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I included the correct page, you'd have to navigate to other pages to find a commercial link. I think you're fishing for an excuse, as it is public knowledge that Wikipedia aggressively protects its defamation of Daniel Brandt.

Unless you'd like to have this brand-new account permanently blocked, you'd best adopt a more civil tone. Just some friendly advice. - Lucky 6.9 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't re-create articles, such as "Gang stalking", that have been legitimately deleted. If you feel the deletion was handled incorrectly, you may appeal it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my widely disseminated web site, the article was illegitately deleted, and admins violated their own policy to delete an article that received more "keep" than "delete" votes. The re-creation was a significant improvement over the original. Naturally, understanding Wikipedia's propensity for arbitrary censorship, I copied the code and tomorrow it will reappear in other articles until it finds a place agreeable to everyone. This is not a threat or defiance, but an attempt to fit in, or to prove that Wikipedia is not as committed to NPOV content as it advertises.

Please remember that wikipedia operates by consensus, which isn't a perfect system but it's the one we've got. It sounds like you are planning to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, which is prohibited. Please don't. The fact that this information is on your own website means that it is available to anyone who wishes to read it, and I'm sure we already have several links to your site. Not every piece of information has a place in this encyclopedia. We have to pick and choose, summarize and factor-down, otherwise it'd be too long. Thanks for understanding. -Willmcw 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange indeed. Your language is one of stringing together policy labels, such as "Sounds like you are planning to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point," which doesn't even apply here. You are trying to make the facts fit these policy boxes. You need to learn to have a real discussion and not simply some exercise in finding policy categories for every statement someone makes. I wonder what categories the statement I am currently making fits into. Let's go through the list. No, I'm not astroturfing. I'm not violating the three revert rule -- that doesn't apply at all. Hmm. I wonder what it could be.

You know, Jimmy Wales created this encyclopedia to oppose the few who control the means of producing and disseminating knowledge. But all I see here is that we're substituting subject matter experts (like those at Brittanica) with a small posse of uneducated or variably educated boons. That's the worst kind of oligarchy. It's not even really mob rule as some experts claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai Streets (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 March 2006

Deletion Review

Just wanted to leave a quick note on your entry at Deletion Review. I've moved your new entry to the top of the page (new entries go at the top) for you, and I've also reformatted the entry so it's easier to read. I hope this helps! —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version 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. -Will Beback 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the same criticism applies to you as well. I haven't seen any discussion from you, and there is nothing more unproducive than your ADHD deletions.

There is discussion at talk:cyberstalking. The community has already rejected this material repeatedly, so the burden in on you to show how you've improved it from what was deleted. -Will Beback 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the material needs work before it is ready to be posted. I'm going to "Userfy" it for you and create a user page with the contents. You can edit it there and provide sources, etc. When it has been edited down to suitable material it can be added to an article. -Will Beback 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking. -Will Beback 18:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material has been significantly improved with more operational language and supporting links to facilitate verification.

I don't know what your background is, but I doubt your credentials and subject matter expertise on this issue approximate mine. I suggest you produce something rather than stake your straw authority on destroying the scholarly work of others. User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking

Expertise is good, but it does not replace the use of verifiable sources, nor does it allow for original research. Please do no use Wikipedia:sock puppets to circumvent the 3RR. Doing so may lead to your being blocked entirely. -Will Beback 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]