Apocman

August 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Novangelis (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that..I was just thinking that it would be helpful to provide the most informatoin possible.Thank you for pointing this out to me, I did not know there was a policy specirficially for this. Apocman (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2010

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity,

Can you be more specific about this? I'm sorry if any of my edits have been viewed as vandalism, but I don't recall deliberately placing any of this untrue information you're talking about. If you can give me an example of a specific incident, that'd clear up a lot of confusion on my end. Thanks. Apocman (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Item by item, from least problematic to most problematic.

• [1] - incorrect category
• [2] - incorrect category, and replaced a semicolon with a \
• [3] - irrelevant speculation (?)
• [4] - false edit summary - you didn't change any spelling, you broke a direct link to the correct Richard Wright, (and on a minor point: you {fact} tagged something in the lead that was referenced further down.)
• [5] - changed to an incorrect date, changed to an incorrect nickname
• [6] - you added "Ohio State Route 18 has been infamous for its abundance of strip clubs and sex shops ... " - which appears to be pure fiction
• [7] - you added "although it was not nearly as well received as his past articles. Early in his career, he wrote a few more obscure and notably more opinion-based texts such as The Economics of Hate: Sex Sells, But Violence Does Too (Crassfield Publishing, 2002), however these are noticeably more pessimistically written and have speculated to have been inspired by personal problems in his life at the time of writing." - which appears to be pure fiction
• [8] - false edit summary. and changed the volume number from the correct 46, to the incorrect 42.

Please stop. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity, 1 & 2 & 3: Yeah, that was a practical joke (bet I had with my less-tasteful friend to see how many random articles I could add to the "list of fictional animals".) Since I saw it as a harmless inside joke and not a major deal (Like page blanking or slander( I went through with it, especially because the articles I changed were relatively popular and I knew they would be reverted soon, thus causing at best negligible damage. I've had my fun, I'll stop.

3. Whoops, didn't notice that - the keyboard I was using when writing this was a new one and I wasn't used to where the keys were, and was trying to write a ; instea dof the \ that appeared in the article. Thanks for correcting it, though. Also, why did you replace my linking of the phrase horses as well as the tag I appended to the end of a suspicious-looking sentence that may have been vandalism? I don't see any reason for those.

4. Sorry about that - I figure more information was better than less, as this is an educational site. Although in hindsight, this edit was probably less encyclopediac and more a random impulse edit; I should have googled the name to see if the two were related before writing it.

5. I removed a redundant link summary on Nigel's article because I saw no reason for it. I've been told that the more unnecessary wordcount in the article, the longer it takes to load in many browsers. I was trying to rectify this as I presumed that it would link tot he same article. The I added after skimming over as I was made aware by another user that articles on biographies must be properly sourced; if it was referenced further down, you could have just added the same citation tag to it as you did to the one below it. I don't see what the issue was here.

6. Incorrect nickname??? I've heard many people I know personally call him that, so I presumed that it was his adopted nickname that he officially used in championships. I apologize, I should have researched this before adding it. However, I added a large paragraph to the beginning of the article, which states'

For the only time in Olympic history, no track cycling events were held, causing much controversy among the professional cycling community; especially because many of the organizers declined to comment on why, even when confronted privately about the incident.

I don't see why you removed this. It seems to me that you're being slightly overzealuos with your removal of the content I add. I appreciate that you're trying to help both Wikipedia and me throughout this, but some of what you are doing is actually impeding the growth of the articles I edit by removing legitimately helpful information.

7. I don't understand what you mean by "pure fiction"; what brings you to believe this? Have you driven down that street yourself, for instance? The issue has been discussed in many local newspapers and literature around the areal if you really want a citation/proof that badly I wouldn't mind clipping off an editorial about it from a recent paper, photographing and uploading it.

8. Again, what brings you to the conclusion that the paragraph I added is completely false? It seems that at this point the fact that I wrote it is enough proof for you that it's incorrect.

9. See 1-3. This was vandalism, but vandalism I considered mostly harmless. Like I said, I'm done doing silly things like this and undermining my own reputation for the cause of a lousy twenty bucks. I've been warned, I'll stop. It was idiotic and I'm sorry you had to go through the trouble of reverting it. Apocman (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you immensely for those admittances and clarifications. (We have had former vandals go on to become administrators, years later. So you're in potentially good company... :)

Yes, I was zealously reverting, based on the edits that were clearly vandalism (It does take a lot of effort to clean up misinformation. Far more trouble than plain test-edits or obvious rudeness). However, I did make a cursory attempt to verify everything at the time, so here's what is still a problem:

1912 Cycling: Rudolph Lewis already has a nickname ("Okey") given in his article. If you believe he had a second nickname (or that the nickname currently in his article is incorrect), then that should first be cleared up at his own article. FYI: He died in 1933.

1912 Cycling: Is there a reason for changing the date from July 7 to July 25? The references I found, stated 07/07/1912.

1912 Cycling: The statement about "...many of the organizers declined to comment on why, even when confronted privately about the incident..." is very specific for a 98 year old event. I think a source would be helpful.

Lamert: I could find no mention of a book by Charles Lemert under that title (The Economics of Hate: Sex Sells, But Violence Does Too), nor any mention of "Crassfield Publishing".

Lamert: any claims about his personal life have to rigorously referenced (See WP:Biography of living person).

Route 18: Are strip clubs and sex shops abundant along the entire highway? If not, then perhaps there is a different article that this information belongs in? I would guess that this is more of a regional/city issue, than a road-related issue.

Lastly: If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend reading through WP:Five pillars. It describes some of the fundamental workings, here.

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cycling: Really? See, I never payed much attention to his career specifically, but many of my friends used to refer to him by that name; it's possible, in hindsight, that this was an inside joke or something similar

rather than a legitimate nickname. I guess it was so ingrained in my head by this point I didn't bother to verify if it was true or not. I don't see how the date of his death is relevent.

Cycling: I was under the presumption that most Olympic events (especially in earlier times) usually occured on the 25th, so I presumed the edit was vandalism. If this is incorrect, I apologize. I probably should have checked the article's edit history first.

Cycling: About the controversy, I recall hearing a blurb about it in one of my college classes and about how it may have been related to international politics heating up (as Olympic Games issues they usually do)

Charles Lemert: About the book, it's possible that I may have mispelled the publisher's name (it was very late at night that I decided to make the edit, doesnt exactly help your hand-eye coordination lol )

Route 18: The first adult store (to my knowledge) can be seen on the outskirts of Bellevue near Twin Lakes Golf Course, and they continue through most of Scipio, stopping briefly when entering Tiffin's city limits (they have common sense; too many families live there) but then resuming on the road all the way to the outskirts of Fostoria; they continue this sporadic "stop and go" pattern depending on population density until the last one can be seen somewhere between the towns of Flatrock and Defiance. Since that encompasses more than half of the stetch of Route 18, including sections near or next to places like rest stops or roadside cemetaries, I felt it was noteworthy. Five pillars: I don't believe I've ever read that. Thank you, I will browse through it someday if I have the time. Apocman (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In reply to your points above:

Cycling: I mentioned the date of death, as I'm still quite hesitant to believe that "many people I know personally call him that". Partially due to your previous edit-problems, and partially just due to the unusualness of a 2degrees connection between a modern Minnesotan otaku and a SouthAfrican miner and cyclist whose heyday was a century ago! It's possible, but I'm reluctant to believe it without evidence :)

Lemert: A misspelling of the publisher is one thing, but I cannot even find a mention of the book.

Route 18: That sounds potentially includable. A newspaper citation would be helpful though. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads might be able to help, if you have questions.

If any of those edits were actually vandalism, now would still be a good time to admit to it. I'm happy to help, if everything is out in the open. (fwiw, I'm a fan of FLCL, Cromartie High, Cowboy Bebop, and Sayonara, Zetsubou Sensei, among others, if that helps you trust me :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity,

And about the "modern otaku" comment - Hah, while I do use computers and own cable television, I would hardly call myself "modern"..... my favorite period in history is around the 18th-20th century which I feel is an often overlooked and fascinating section of history (I enjoy steampunk fiction in particular) and many of the people I know are sports fans (not the typical adrenaline-junkie jekrs that occupy my collage dorm who sidetrack their lives with the all-too-common addiction to "Beer" or "Titts" that befell so many of my simple-minded acquaintances - mind you, the people I associate with are fans of sports of real skill and technique rather than brute strength like archery, cycling and StarCraft, among others) I don't understand what you mean by a "2degress connection" or the "evidence" part of it; I don't know how I can provide evidence of me or my friends passing interest in Olympic history, although I appreciate your interest in my background, even if it is purely out of suspicion. Lemert: That's odd. What resources have you been using to search for it? Like I said in the article, it's a very obscure book (not sure if it's still in print) but there still be somehting about it online. If it helps to know where I got the information from, I was reading a series of sociology-oriented book reviews off a free newspaper article. Route 18: Thanks, I'll try to find a mention of it in the paper and upload it to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocman (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again.

Cycling: Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse the issue by mentioning "evidence" (obviously a near-impossibility!). I should have instead just pointed to WP:PRIMARY: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."

Lemert: I was checking Google, regarding the book title: [9]. Though I did also try searching Abebooks, and Library of Congress, for similar titles.

Lemert: The crucial problem was the sentence "... however these are noticeably more pessimistically written and have speculated to have been inspired by personal problems in his life at the time of writing". The "pessimistically written" would need a citation (as it constitutes an opinion). More importantly, the "personal problems" would need a citation from an impeccable source, per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cycling: Alright, I was a little confused there. Thanks for clearing that up.

Lemert: The part about unsourced edits does make sense to me, I didn't know that biographacal articles were so tough on speculation. I'll refrain from adding any similar speculation in the future, as I don't want to cause any confusion about possible vandalism. I don't understand what you mean by an opinion needing a citation; since opinions are wholly different from facts, why would we need proof that someone(or several people) had that opinion? I could understand if it was a factual claim such as a scientific theory, but oppinions don't carry enough weight in my mind to warrant that, let alone strictly require it.If you were to cite an opinion, you'd first have to find a reliable source stating it, which may not exist or be skewed towards one point of view, and by nature people's oppinions aren't concrete, unchanging facts.

Also, regarding the book title: I'm starting to believe more and more that no such book exists. It's possible that it was by a different author. Like I said, the only place I'd heard of it before was the aftorementioned newspaper article, and it's possible the writer may have had the wrong author. If this was the case, I apologize. Apocman (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The best explanation is given in the second pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars, and the items it links to. See also the intro at Wikipedia:Describing points of view.

(Essentially: The 3 main content-policies here are WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability. From those 3, most other decisions flow.)

I won't ramble on that front.

As for why it is necessary, there's a good short example at WP:PEACOCK.

If you want more insights, two of my favourite pages (over at the "meta" site) are meta:Wiki personality type and meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, which explain some of the editor-archetypes and their motivations. (I personally tend towards "eventualism" and "dabbler" and "inclusionism", but I think we need all the typologies, to balance each other out.)

Let me know if I can be of any further help. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank Williams

Hello. I've not been able to find any verification that a person named "Frank Williams" or "Frank J Williams" was involved in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse. The 13 victims are named in the citation given. Can you provide a source to verify the information that you have added? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity,

That's odd! I had known Frank J. personally as a distant friend for many years up until the bridge collapse, and it's very strange that he was not mentioned in the citations; I didn't check them myself because I figured since it was very well known around my community that he met his end on that bridge, that the newspaper article would say so. Frank was very close to my family and the news was very hard to bear for us, and the short meeting we had with his family (as close to a formal funeral as we really got) was enough to convince me beyond any shadow of a doubt that he passed from our world on that day; although I recognize that personal experience isn't something you can add a citation link to (lol... if only!): would it be sufficient if you give me a day or two I could head to the library dig up an obituary entry in the newspaper or something? I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to find it in writing. Apocman (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)