Uwishiwazjohng
|
Regarding an earlier comparison you made between David Ferguson's legal history record and that of Barry Bonds. I can't seem to find any significant media coverage on Bonds' legal issues. Can you direct me to such coverage? If such major coverage of Bonds is so minimal, then really no parallel can be drawn. Why are you trying to make this comparison Ferguson's and Bonds' legal history?
DrJamesX (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
- Now that's interesting. When I click on the link above it takes me to segments listing the major source of media coverage for Barry Bonds. Thanks for providing that. The section of the Bonds' WP in question references a book Game of Shadows and the excerpts from that book which were posted in Sports Illustrated. The 2 authors who wrote that book Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada drew as their primary source of material Shadows their investigative reporting that they did on Bonds and the BALCO case while writing for...now get this...the San Francisco Chronicle.
- Isn't that the same newspaper that 'littered' your driveway and which, while calling for the elimination of the IFUC article, you derided for its fall from journalistic respectability and reliability?
- Seems like when you want to drag Ferguson's career around your littered driveway, then using the Chronicle as a proxy source is suitable. But when another WP user calls upon the Chronicle to substantiate Ferguson's contributions to the worlds of music and art, then the paper is nothing but a fluff-riddled rag. Square that one for me, will ya.
DrJamesX (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
- I made a mistake. I do that sometimes. I'm human. You were right. I mistook the Examiner for the Chronicle. By the time I went to correct my error, the page was no longer supposed to be edited --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- You seem very upset with me and are taking just about everything I do personally. You are following me around to see what I'm doing. That's WP:HARASS. I've warned you on these pages numerous times. I'm seeking mediation. --04:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're notion that you've previously warned me 'numerous times' is a fabrication. More importantly, given that you've continuously edited and sought deletion of articles that I either established or worked on well in advance of you, it will be easier to prove that you have followed me around.
- DrJamesX (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
David Ferguson and CD Presents
editThank you for letting me know more about your position. I had not actually reviewed the sources in the DF article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Edits to David Ferguson (impresario)
editThe yearbook citations you removed are valid and your removal of the text has been reversed. Your editing practices are severely compromised by your flagrant COI with Ferguson. This COI will be pointed out repeatedly until you stop your campaign to destroy and/or remove his article or the CD Presents article. Any additional removals of any text or citations from either article without WP user consensus (and, to be clear, just you and DoriSmith do not qualify as a consensus) and you'll be reported for vandalism. DrJamesX (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
- DrJamesX
- I didn't removed the yearbook cites. In fact, I was the editor who accessed them and confirmed their accuracy. I removed the Miami Hurricane cites. My library can't get a hold of them, which means they can't be confirmed and therefore aren't usable. I'm guessing if you had a copy of them posted them on the discussion page, that would do.
- WP:COI Says this:
- Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested.
'
- I have done so. My COI is 'flagrant' because I have made it so.
- WP:OUTING says that you should not say who you think people are and you should not attempt to get them to confirm or deny anything. I have remained steadfast in my efforts to neither confirm or deny your statements about me.
- If you read WP:HARASS, you will see that it mentions wikihounding, threats, and user space harassment, all of which you have engaged or are currently engaging in.
- I have nothing against you personally, DrJamesX. I have serious problems with this article, although I have less problems with it as it gets closer to being accurate. I do have a problem with the sources you are using. They are not reliable, in my opinion. I do not think that User:Yiloslime answered my question, unfortunately, nor has anyone answered User:DoriSmith's questions about the sources. The articles do not clearly fall into any of the categories the user mentioned as either reliable or unreliable. You might say it was a feature, I might say it was an editorial/opinion piece.
- We're all on our own here, DrJamesX. I'm guessing User:DoriSmith has given up on both of us, because of the drama. So we're going to have to figure this out.
- I'm not going anywhere unless I get blocked, so we're going to have to try to live together peacefully. We have strong differences of opinion that we have thus far not been able to sort out.
- Would you be willing to go to WP:M? -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your efforts to seduce me into mediation and to cajole me into believing that your editing practices have been designed to improve the article(s) are both insulting and embarrassing.
- If a WP editor (other than DoriSmith or DameSmartyPants) or admin suggests mediation, I'll certainly consider the process. But from you? You pretty much exhausted any and all chances for cooperation on the David Ferguson article by...let me count the ways...by early on pretending to be an associate of his to cause dissension between said associate and Ferguson (then compounding the insult by saying that the name you chose, 'CassandraR' was mere coincidence)...by promising to refrain from editing the article after your first COI admission, then failing to honor your word...by harassing me with a Sockpuppet report which was summarily rejected...by establishing and maintaining a harmful Legal History section (which clearly betrayed your promise to hold to an NPOV), a section also thunderously rejected by other WP users...by trying to delete the IFUC page, an effort once again defeated....And that's just a partial list of your transgressions.
- Apparently there is no limit as to how many times you can have sand kicked in your face vis-a-vis your campaign to destroy the article(s) before you cease this inappropriate behavior.
- I hope that answers your question.
- DrJamesX (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
- WP:M will give us both more control over our fate than my other choices. However, since you've refused, you've left me no other choice. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not need to be on line
editYour rationale for this edit is incorrect. Content from reliable newspapers do not need to be on line to be used. A newspaper article does not cease to exist because someone changed their online filing system. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)