Kidman Wheeler
Welcome
edit
|
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. — SpikeToronto 20:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Maclean's. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — SpikeToronto 01:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Maclean's. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. jæs (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maclean's. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. jæs (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Maclean's
editWhy are you preventing me from editing this? I am "neutral" and want to contribute to knowledge on this subject matter. Who are you? You work for Maclean's magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidman Wheeler (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not affiliated with Maclean's, except for cancelling my subscription a few years ago. I have no reason to question your neutrality, but your edits to the article have significant point-of-view issues that make them inappropriate for an encyclopædia. Particularly, Wikipedia has policies relating to the balance of an article and the types of sources that are acceptable. The content you are adding fails, in many ways, on both of those counts. There is also a policy, which I mentioned on your talk page, that requires you to discuss your changes after other editors request that you do so or revert your content. I don't believe it's your intention, but you have repeatedly reverted myself and other editors, and this is not acceptable. Please see Talk:Maclean's/Archives/2012#Controversy, so that we can discuss these issues further there. You might also want to review WP:5P, an article on the core principles of Wikipedia. jæs (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Moved from my talk page. Feel free to respond here, instead. I'll keep your page on my watchlist and respond here, as well. jæs (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have brought up this issue on the relevant administrator noticeboard. jæs (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Maclean's, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. KrakatoaKatie 01:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KrakatoaKatie 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)December 2010
edit Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Maclean's. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. — SpikeToronto 06:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Maclean's, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".
Reverting (i.e., undoing) another editor's edit is never a minor edit and should not be marked as such. And, reverts require an explanation explaining the revert. — SpikeToronto 06:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maclean's. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — SpikeToronto 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Charest’s letter
editThe reason you cannot use the G&M source is that it neither interprets nor discusses Charest’s letter. It merely reprints it. As such, it is a raw document, or what Wikipedia calls a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy against the use of primary sources. You can find it at WP:PRIMARY, as I have pointed out to you in edit summaries.
The only way a a primary source can be used is if it is also accompanied by a secondary source that interprets, analyzes, and/or discusses the material in the primary source. Here is the primary source policy:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
Since the CBC source makes no mention of Charest, you need to find another source — a source that is an article — that mentions him, the letter, etc. Until you can find such a secondary source, all mention of Charest needs to be removed from that section of the article.
If you interpret or analyze the material yourself, you are introducing original research, which violates Wikipedia’s policy against original research (see Wikipedia:No original research (shortcut → WP:NOR)). This includes any synthesis of the material (see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position (shortcut → WP:SYN)).
When other editors point out Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, they are not trying to silence or censor you. They are trying to help you improve your editing by bringing it in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to help you be a constructive, collegial editor and not a disruptive editor. Thus, when we point you towards these policies and guideline, you should take an editing break and instead read the things to which we are directing you.
Finally, as a general rule, editors at Wikipedia are not supposed to have single-purpose accounts, nor use agenda accounts to prosecute a particular agenda. Keep this in mind when you are focussing your editing solely on Maclean’s. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Talkback: SpikeToronto
edit
Message added 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Noticeboard discussion
editPlease be advised I've raised some concerns regarding your editing at the appropriate noticeboard. You may wish to respond there. jæs (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- In order to allow for your comment, which you manually added to the archives, to be preserved and discussed, I have unarchived the above discussion. The link above will take you there, where you can add any further thoughts should you wish to do so. Please note that, in the future, you should not manually edit any archives. jæs (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
January 2011
edit Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Maclean's.
Sorry I forgot to put the wikilink back in for sensationalist. I remember that you had it there before, but when I was working on the sentence I forgot to put the square brackets back. Thanks again. — SpikeToronto 08:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Maclean's "too asian?" controversy
editI offered some reasons for shrinking the 'too asian?' section over at the Maclean's talk page. I wasn't sabotoging it. Rather, I was increasing its clarity and reducing its length. Disagree if you want, but at least read through my reasons and at least keep some of my language improvements. Also, if the "Too Asian?" article was such a big deal that it warrants that many words, perhaps you should give it its own page. Brokesocscene (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You were sabotaging it indeed. Why should there be a separate page? The content obviously is pertinent to the Maclean's topic. It is NOT "many words". It's very short and concise. You will need a better excuse to plaster the page with praise for Maclean's and to remove the unflattering truth. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You seem more intent on making Maclean's look bad than on improving the accuracy and clarity of its wikipedia entry. How is a shorter piece that says 'there was an article, it was controversial, maclean's refused to apologize' hiding 'the unflattering truth'? And where did i 'plaster praise'? When I improved on your clunky language? I have no opinion on the controversies; i just want them accurately represented, and represented in a way proportional to their significance. Brokesocscene (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop lying. You are intent on removing the truth. It's obvious what you seek to remove. My language is not "clunky". In fact I compromised with your edits. But the rules don't allow you to remove or edit with no reason. You say "proportional to their significance", but the "Too Asian" entry is currently less than 130 words. The "Quebec controversy" section is 635 words. It's almost five times as long. With your agenda, you should be happy already that there isn't any mention of how people are leaving Rogers because they are offended by Maclean's. Why don't I add it? Because I know you will pounce to delete it. The Globe and Mail writes about Rogers (Feb 17, 2011): "The company gained fewer subscribers than it had during the same period last year, saw an increase in the rate of wireless customers leaving, and had to pay out large sums to upgrade wireless customers whose contracts were expiring." Kidman Wheeler (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I'd like the Quebec Controversy shrunk for the same reason, but I was squashed by others. I think that one is too long too, as I noted on the Maclean's:talk page. There is no mention of the "regina worst neighbourbood controoversy", which was just as big as the too asian one. I'd like to see consistency in the lengths of these things, and I'd like to see them more concise. As for your assertion that Maclean's is costing Rogers Communication customers, if you have evidence of causation and not just correlation, I'd say go ahead and write it. Not that it matters, but my anecdotal evidence is that people leave Rogers telecom because of its shitty coverage, not what's said in a magazine it owns. But who knows. You may be right. Brokesocscene (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)