User talk:Tucker454

Biographies of living persons

Hi Tucker454. I see you recently partially readded some content that I removed at Arvada, Colorado. I would like to point out that Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy forbids the addition of poorly sourced or unsourced material which is negative about a living person. It also advises me, as administrator, to perform any sort of normally forbidden activities, such as removing the content as often as necessary (normally this would be considered edit warring), or even blocking your account and/or locking the page to make sure the content is suitable (normally this would be considered unfair use of administrator power while involved in a dispute).

As such, I'm going to revert your addition for now to the page, and ask that you justify its inclusion on the talk page, both in terms of showing that the sources agree with the content (this should be simple, but do it for my sake please; I'm not good at reading sources) and, more importantly, in terms of showing that another few sentences on the scandal is worth including in an article about a town with a lot of other important happenings (see WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK). Please make your case at Talk:Arvada, Colorado.

I apologize in advance for any unnecessary hassle, but I hope you understand why I'm doing it; there are people's real-life reputations on the line, so we want to make sure to show the utmost diligence. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, when I get the time I will add the information you want. I was kind of surprised that you left the name of Don Wick in your edit, as you had removed all others. The names no longer need to be mentioned, I didn't add any, but the facts are very well supported by the references. What type of consolidated or condensed information from the references did you want? Specific points where the citations are lacking would be appreciated. I know that is a hassle as well, but I am confused as to what is in question? Removing the mention of specific names eliminates the biography of living persons, and a conversation with any citizen of Arvada would show that this addition is not given undue weight - people are scared.

Please let me know what it is that you want to see. Tucker454 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy your comment back from my talk page; I prefer to keep discussion localized (if you'd prefer, you can remove it, but I'd prefer it on either my page or yours, not both). Just let me know when you've responded by placing {{tb}} on my talk page.

Re: Don Wick: I'm not at all as familiar as you are about this situation. If you think it should be removed, by all means do so.
Re: what type of information do I want? A consolidation of what the references say, with quotes if possible, justifying that the content is correct. Placed on the talk page. I have not reviewed the citations in depth because, frankly, I prefer to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia in my free time, so I'm asking for your assistance. Thus, justify the citations' inclusion for me, as someone who has never read the citations, and for anyone else who doesn't want to have to read the entire articles (and thus spend a long time gathering all the information).
People are scared - well that probably counts as original research - it's your subjective experience, and sometimes our subjective experiences are wrong (e.g., when I heard rumors about the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal before it broke bigtime news, I figured it wouldn't make much news... oops). However, if it is true that this has been a big deal, then you should be able to show it with consistent local news articles, etc.

The reason we have to go through all this is, because like I said above, people's reputations are on the line, and at least one editor (in the history of the page) has contested it. That doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be included as is, just that we should justify it.

Cheers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Personal attacks against other users, like you made to Oda Mari at Talk:Shiba Inu, are not allowed per WP:NPA and can lead to your account being blocked. If you want to talk about the image, feel free to do so (though, I'll note, you're responding to a discussion from almost 1 year ago), but do not include attacks in that message. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Where were you last year? Good job sleeping on the job. I am very curious that the personal attacks, threats and such made in the past were met with no action in over a year. And yet, mere hours after I point out the fact the dog that I was personally attacked for posting an image of (for reasons explained by people such as Oda Mari) now exists WITHOUT ACTION ON MY PART on this page is met with near instant complaint. Perhaps you need to also remind Oda Mari that pages are not personally owned. Our communications made it clear that she believes she "owns" pages. Obviously this complaint came from her, and surely she is still acting like a little tyrant. Maybe enforce the rules universally? Just saying. Tucker454 (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 4 million pages on Wikipedia. I, personally, watch a little under 5000. There's a limit to what any one human can do. My guess is that last year, I wasn't even watching that page. However, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are a tyrant...and, no matter what, you cannot use that type of language on Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires that we edit collaboratively. We cannot do that when people attack each other. If you have a problem with that page that you still want to resolve, we can do so--Wikipedia has a whole set of dispute resolution processes, which I would be glad to help you utilize, as long as you're willing to remain civil through the process. If you're not then you can't edit Wikipedia. As for your note that I warn Oda Mari for ownership...I can't warn people for actions taken a year ago. But if there are current problems, we can work together to try to address them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you this girl's friend or something? For you to gloss over the irony of this situation certainly implies this to be the case. I found it humorous and quite irritating, that after such a long and pointless debate to find that an image of my dog was on the site in the end anyways. Doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with me or not, obviously the general population agrees with me for the end image. I would stand by the tyrant comments. Wiki is still losing active editors is it not? I became tired of contributing quickly, dealing with people such as I named. Certainly this is not your personal fault, but the reality is people grow tired of dealing with aggressive editors who are out of line in practice if not in exact policy. She was clearly out of line by the mere fact that her sustained efforts ended up with no effect. I don't expect you to deal with issues of a years past, shoot - maybe she isn't even out of control anymore. Tucker454 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]