User talk:Wikeye

Welcome!

Merry Christmas, Wikeye!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Wikeye! I am Chetblong, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some pages that will help you edit Wikipedia:   Wikipedia:How to edit a page   Tutorial   Sandbox, the place where you can experiment   Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.   Wikipedia:Five pillars   Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Here are some ways you can help improve Wikipedia:   Write an article   Fight vandalism   Translate an article   Improve illustrations and upload new images   Perform maintenance tasks   Become a member of a project that interests you

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Chetblong^Talk_Sign 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Making of Dr. Phil by Sophia Dembling

I started a discussion here that you might be interested in. Ward3001 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory information on Phil McGraw

You added a statement: "ethical violation involving a teenage girl". It is extremely important in biographies of living people to avoid statements that even suggest controversial behavior even if it is not stated overtly. "Teenage girl" suggests behavior involving a minor and is inflammatory. Althouh it is technically accurate, it gives an inaccurate impression by omission of important information: the person in question was an adult, not in the age range 13-17 years old. I will not go so far as to say that you were intentionally deceptive, but it certainly gives that appearance. Please read WP:BLP carefully, and be cautious with your wording in biographies. Editors are held to a higher standard in such articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had said "ethical violation involving a minor girl" (or juvenile girl or young girl), I would agree with you. However, that is not what I said, so none of this applies to me, especially the part about being intentionally deceptive. Teenager means "a person from the age of 13 through 19"--nothing more or less. There is no controversy about that. However, Phil McGraw's behavior was controversial enough to result in a rare sanction from the Texas Board (only the 7th person ever sanctioned for "dual relationship", and he was one of the few Texas-licensed psychologists ever required to undergo a psychological exam as part of a sanction). The teenager in question was technically an adult, but had a mental problem that McGraw was supposed to be treating--not taking advantage of. So, it's mostly Dr. Phil's fault that describing this sordid chapter in his life is so shocking and revolting. I think you mistake your own natural disgust at reading the details of this event with "inflammatory" comments. Wikeye (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you were intentionally deceptive. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And I am not defending McGraw. His behavior was wrong, and indeed he did take advantage of her. Nonetheless, "teenage girl" in a context of misbehavior implies an underage girl to just about anyone. Elizabeth Smart was a teenage girl who was abused. To describe her as a "teenage girl" rightfully conjures all kinds of horrible images of a pedophile doing despicable things. To describe an adult as a "teenage girl" can produce the same images if it is not clear that the person in question is an adult. For example, Monica Lewinsky was about 22, only two or three years older than the young lady in the McGraw case, when Clinton became involved with her. Even if Lewinsky had been 19, people would not have had the same reaction as they would if she had been 14. It simply isn't the same. Again, that's not to justify anything Clinton or McGraw did, but there's a world of difference between doing those things with a 19 year old and a 14 year old even though it's wrong in both cases. To just say "teenage girl" makes that distinction very unclear. And I am not mistaking my natural disgust with "inflammatory". I hear about disgusting things all the time in my line of work, but I see a clear distinction between a pedophile and someone who takes advantage of an adult. And I think almost any naive reader who read that McGraw did unethical things with a "teenage girl" would have instantly had an image of a pedophile. If the lady had been 20 (and she may have been close to 20), his behavior would have been just as wrong, but it could not have been misinterpreted as pedophilia by the term "teenage girl".

By the way, the single largest category of psychology licensing boards sanctions are for "dual relationships". Yes, seven is rare, but that reflects the rarity of sanctions for any offense and not the rarity of "dual relationships" compared to other ethical violations.

Once again, I'm not accusing you of anything. I simply want you to be careful with your wording in biographical articles. You could just as easily have written "19 year old" instead of "teenage girl", and it would have made all the difference. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ward3001. Greg Grahame (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No one cares what you think.Wikeye (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Addresses in articles

I know you made the edit in good faith, but WP:BLP states that "articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information." I personally don't see a problem with including square footage, number of bedrooms, etc., although Gamaliel removed that also. Ward3001 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I thought it would be interesting info, but I see it is clearly not allowed. Thanks for the heads up. I'll restore the square footage and other non-prohibited info (if allowed) after I talk to Gamaliel. Wikeye (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rera Kamuy Hokkaido logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Rera Kamuy Hokkaido logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is used in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rera_Kamuy_Hokkaido but it's a png image--not gif

Wikeye (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are six billion of us who aren't American, and we count as people too

Please have a look at these two maps, and see if you can spot the difference:

• 
• 

It is exasperating that time and time again Americans forget that the rest of the world exists.

PS. This comment refers to your edit to Gran Torino (film). "Domestic" box office is U.S. and Canada, and the Jesusland map was the best I could find showing only those two countries. Greg Grahame (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your obsessive hatred of Oprah Winfrey

I noticed you seem to have an obsession with adding negative material to articles relating to Oprah Winfrey. I'm not a fan of hers either, but wikipedia is not the place to trash people. Try to be a little less biased in your edits. Flynneffects (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Try to follow your own advice when you comment on my edits. Using dramatic and inflammatory words like "obsession" and "hatred" is juvenile name-calling and has no place here. I have relatively few edits on Oprah. They are all notable and well-cited from mainstream media. I can't help that you consider them to be negative. Live with it. Wikeye (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kids get suspended and expelled for sexual misconduct at every school in the world, yet only in the article on Oprah's school do I see sections devoted to this. Just because something is mentioned in the news does not make it encyclopedic. Wikpedia is not a news source. I personally can't stand Oprah, but what has become increasingly obvious is that you are deliberately using wikipedia as a tool to damage the reputation of Oprah Winfrey and her school and that's wrong. Trashing the reputations of living people is not why wikipedia was created, it goes against everything wikipedia stands for, it's not who we are. Over half your edits have been related to Oprah or her spin-off Dr. Phil. Flynneffects (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that sexual misconduct occurred at Oprah's school, while the media have only reported alleged misconduct. In that regard, you are more biased than the media that you condemn. All of my edits are notable and well-cited. On the other hand, you have no support for your accusation that I am deliberately trashing Oprah's reputation. Rather, your vindictive rants about my edits are starting to look like you are stalking and slandering me in order to trash my excellent reputation. You are not Wikipedia, so stop using the term "we". Are you one of those "public relations" people who Dr. Phil hired to "preserve and maintain" his public image? Or do you work for Oprah? Either way, you need to stop stalking and slandering me.Wikeye (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I work for a tiny newspaper with no connections to Oprah or Dr. Phil. There are people who will fight for justice without needing to be financially compensated for it. Do you work for a competing talk show that airs in the same time slot as Oprah or Dr. Phil? Flynneffects (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't work for any talk shows. Just for the record, you have been involved with Wikipedia for less than 2 months. During that time, you have edited only 8 pages and have created none, yet you fancy yourself a defender of Wikipedia, Dr. Phil and Oprah, and assume that you know better than others why Wikipedia was created, what it stands for, and "who we are." Most of your edits are related to "defending" the image of Oprah or Dr. Phil while stalking/slandering me. Well, except for that IQ stuff you pretend to know about. None of your edits are well-cited or even cited at all. It's all just your opinion, which has no basis in fact. This is a great lesson for new contributors who start editing willy-nilly without bothering to read the Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest you do so before you post anything further. Thank you.Wikeye (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wrecking good articles with trivial details

Your recent edits on Oprah Winfrey have been counterproductive. First, you wasted wikipedia’s time by confusing an online poll with an official Time magazine list, and then when you finally realized your error, you cluttered the article with trivial details about the online poll. This was a very poor editorial decision on your part for several reasons: (1) It elevates the results of a trivial online poll (that has ludicrous results) to the level of the official list, giving it just as much weight as a prestigious list (2) it clutters the article with too many unencyclopedic micro-details, thus confusing the reader (3) it disrupts the flow of an article that is very well written, and (4) it looks silly and disproportionate to have so much silly detail devoted to the 2008 and 2009 polls when all the other years are ignored (and rightly so!). Your edits today did nothing to improve the quality of the article, all they did was serve to confuse the issue and try to minimize Oprah’s repeated Time 100 honor. I am very concerned that you are repeatedly making poor editorial decisions. Flynneffects (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. The only time wasted was my own (and yours, apparently). I made a little mistake; we all do. You shouldn't attack me for that. Some would argue that the article was already clogged with trivia in the first place and that my edits are significant, interesting facts that help to balance a cheerleading-type article that reads more like an Oprah press release than a proper encyclopedic article. Others might say that what looks silly and disproportionate are all the silly detail devoted to nonobjective pronouncements by media talking heads that are used as citations in this article. My edits balance the article, thereby putting Oprah's Time 100 "honors" in their proper perspective. I am very concerned that you are repeatedly attacking me due to lack of experience and undue anxiety in promoting Oprah Winfrey at the expense of balance and objective facts.Wikeye (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I’m challenging you because I don’t like seeing wikipedia’s articles wrecked by people who are using it promote a single-minded agenda. You don’t balance the editorial judgment of a prestigious publication by cluttering the article with trivial stats from a meaningless obscure unscientific online poll. There’s nothing significant or interesting about it, and the fact that you would argue that it is shows your lack of perspective. If some notable entity decided to criticize Time magazine’s repeated honoring of Oprah, then that would be notable, but just because no notable balance exists to a fact that you don’t like, doesn’t give you the right to invent balance by cluttering the article with the most trivial stats I’ve ever seen in wikipedia. Flynneffects (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And not only is the online poll you cite trivial and unscientifc, but it's been hacked[1]so the results are false. Flynneffects (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The "prestigious publication" you refer to is Time, which is the same entity that publishes what you inappropriately label "meaningless obscure unscientific online poll". The results of the poll are not "false." If what you say is true, then certainly Time, a "prestigious publication" would not publish such a poll. As you say, the Time 100 is based on "editorial judgment"--not objective facts. Just because voters in the poll have different opinions than you is no reason to marginalize their opinions in favor of promoting a single-minded agenda to enhance Oprah's image by citing like-minded opinions and ignoring objective facts. I think as you read more of the Wikipedia and gain more experience, you'll figure out what I'm talking about.Wikeye (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The poll is not only unscientific, but it was hacked. Time magazine does not consider these polls worthy as evidenced by the fact that they ignore them when constructing their lists. You have a very long and very extensive history of adding negative information to the articles of Oprah Winfrey and related living persons (i.e. Dr. Phil) and institutions (her school). Not only do you frequently get your facts wrong in edits and disrupt the flow of articles, but almost all of your edits do damage to the reputations of living peoples and the discussion above on your talk page suggests you tried to add highly sensitive private information such as an address to an article. Do you realize you cause harm to people when you do that? Other comments on your talk page suggest you falsely libeled Dr. Phil as having relations with a teenaged girl when in actuality she’s an adult, yet you chose the ambiguous term “teenage” which can be interpreted as a minor. This is getting very very serious. I think you owe wikipedia an explanation. Flynneffects (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting silly. You have a very short history of useful edits. Most of your "work" consists of attacking me and supporting Oprah Winfrey. For all I know, you are one of her PR people trying to rehabilitate her public image. And not too successfully, I might add. Trust me, Oprah doesn't need you and others to exaggerate her popularity, influence, achievements, etc. Her record stands on its own, without any hype from anyone else. Your personal attacks are incorrect and show that you have a dubious agenda here. Dr. Phil is not related to Oprah--where did you get that? Silly. All of the information I added about Dr. Phil is objective, factual and well-cited. I think it was the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists who first disclosed that the girl he had a relationship with was a teenager. I understand your reaction to this revelation--it is disgusting. Your assumption that she was an "adult" is incorrect. She was a patient of Dr. Phil's with a mental problem and therefore not necessarily a competent adult at the time. The Texas State Board reviewed the case and decided that Dr. Phil's conduct was inappropriate. They even ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which he failed to do. If you would try to look at my edits objectively, you would see that without them, no one would have realized that Dr. Phil is not a licensed doctor or professional. You might consider that to be "negative, unencyclopedic micro-details" but most other good editors would consider this to be objective, important information. Please re-read the Wikipedia guidelines before you continue to personally attack my good works.Wikeye (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By libeling Dr. Phil as having relations with a teenaged girl, you are in severe violation of wikipedia policy. By adding private addresses of living people to wikipedia articles, you are violating the privacy of public figures. The fact that I wont tolerate these reckless violations of wikipedia policy does not make me a PR person. Indeed I should be asking if you’re a PR person, hired by one of Oprah’s many media rivals to damage her reputation or the damage the reputation of her spinoff Dr. Phil. Please explain why almost all of your edits are on Oprah, her school, or her spinoff Dr. Phil, and please explain why you ONLY add content that does damage to their reputations Flynneffects (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikeye, I have watched your conflicts with Flynneffects and have stayed out of it. But you're giving your same old bullshit utterly meaningless argument about Phil McGraw and a "teenager". She was not underage, and my comments above explain fully why it is misleading to use the term "teenager". I have no comments at this point about the Oprah issue and most of the McGraw issues, but you overstepped fair editing standards with the "teenager" edit, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at the time, although pointing out the problem with your edit. Your use of the the same useless argument immediately above now convinces me more that you learned nothing from our exchange, and I am now less inclined to assume good faith. I'm not attacking you, just pointing out the problems with your arguments and asking you to take a closer look at your motivations, because I certainly am. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, then please keep your mouth shut. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your lame comment about assuming good faith on my part when it was obvious that you did not. Stop blaming me for your misinterpretations and assumptions. Find something better to do than trolling around here and trying to make mountains out of molehills. And stop blaming me for Dr. Phil's disgusting behavior.Wikeye (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell other users to keep their mouth shut, when all they are doing is trying to prevent you from smearing public figures. Don't tell a responsible user to find something better to do. Why don't you find something better to do than smearing public figures? Flynneffects (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm cautioning Ward3001 (talk) about his language, since calling my arguments "bullshit" could be viewed as a personal attack, which we should avoid, although I think that what he means by "bullshit" is something that contradicts his personal worldview. I'm saying that if you and he can't follow the rules, then don't post here. Responsible users know that. Otherwise, feel free to post anything you like--even if it contradicts my opinion. Just because you two interpret things differently than I do, you don't have to get all nasty and vengeful. And stop accusing me of smearing public figures. It's all factual and documented.Wikeye (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for using language that I find hard to believe you have never used. I corrected my statement. Your argument is "utterly meaningless". Don't try to kill the messenger Wikeye; try to learn from your mistakes. There's a he-- of a lot more (is that clean enough?) to decent writing standards than "factual and documented", and in this particular case, you failed completely. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Regarding this edit:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Wikipedia's personal attack policy applies to your own talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding." Sorry, poor joke by me.Wikeye (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

In case you're not aware of it, Flynneffects has opened Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Unrelenting Anti-Oprah, Anti-Dr. Phil POV pushing, combined with libelous edits & invasions of privacy.

My take on this, being unfamiliar with the issue, is that his complaints are exaggerated but have some merit. I'm sure you disagree, but in any case there is one suggestion I have for you: many of your talk contribs come across as jerky -- taking a condescending tone, making snarky jokes, and calling people "dear" and "junior". Behavior like that will cause you to not get much support if the dispute moves to higher levels, as seems likely. So, I suggest that you try to pretend to respect the people you are communicating with, however you actually feel about it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed that thread and the diffs cited in it as well as your contributions in general. It is my view as a previously uninvolved editor that you are violating BLP policy with your edits to the Oprah and Dr. Phil articles by consistently introducing biased material that pushes a point of view and puts undue weight on negative aspects and items of these people's careers and lives. You're, in accordance with policy as outlined at the BLP enforcement log page, hereby counseled to discontinue such edits and warned that if you do not, you may find yourself sanctioned. I suggest you find other articles to occupy your time, since there seems to be a long running pattern here. I will keep your talk on my watch for a while should you have any questions. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)