Stargnoc

May 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that you had attacked more than one editor, possibly in the post, with definitely more than one insult, not to mention you were saying what their political motivations were, I lost good faith with you. That level four is for assuming bad faith.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite whatever reasons you may have, calling someone a liar and hypocrite are not allowed, period. It doesn't matter if he actually is lying, you are not allowed to call names here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE As far as I can see, this is a new editor - who may not be entirely familiar of the wikiways. As a reasonably new editor who in all good faith fell foul of a policy or two initial, perhaps a lighter approach than a level 4 warning and an immediate assumption of bad faith would be appropriate?

Stargnoc, if you have strong opinions on a subject focus on debate on the article talk page and only on content. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into personal comments no matter how warranted you may feel it is. Opposing views can be equally valid and it is through debate we hope to obtain concensus. YOu may find dispute resolution & to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests of use. Amicaveritas (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was inappropriate of me to refer to the user as a liar and a hypocrite; I am indeed a new user and haven't had much experience in the talk section. I'll try to behave! Thanks.Stargnoc (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Goals of Wikipedia

I suggest you read WP:BLP, for what the goals of WP are. Simply, you are not to add material such as what you are adding per our BLP policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add any information to Sean Hannity's page and I never have. I fail to see anything in the BLP policy that applies to what was added by another user about Sean Hannity's statement that he would agree to be waterboarded for charity. Please feel free to point out what applies from BLP. Recentism is applicable, of course.Stargnoc (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To censor articles by REMOVING items that could be perceived as unflattering to the subject is more damaging to the goals of Wikipedia than ADDING "negative," truthful information in the first place.Stargnoc (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC). That is hardly true, as, as said, it is against BLP policy to add inflammatory material to a BLP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst conforming to Wikipedia's rules I have the right to my own viewpoint. I think you are mistaken when you say that my opinion is "hardly true". Let us agree to disagree. I do not have to agree with all of Wikipedia's ideals to abide by them. I still believe that completely removing material that can be viewed as unflattering to a subject is worse than leaving the material there or editing it to contain facts, not attacks (yes, that rhymes). I do not believe intentionally derogatory material should be kept in whole.

Specifically, I don't view all information regarding the statement Sean Hannity made as necessarily "inflammatory."

The specific statement that was added to the article, however, does appear to violate the "criticism and praise" section of the BLP:

"Sean Hannity has said that waterboarding in not torture, however during an interview with Charles Grodin on his TV show, Sean Hannity promised to be waterboarded for a charity to help the troops who are risking their lives for freedom. Kieth Olbermann as taken up Sean Hannity's commitment by offering $1000.00 for each second Sean Hannity can hold out. As of April 28, 2009, Sean Hannity has not accepted to be waterboarded for any charity whatsoever,to help the troops risking their lives in Iraq and Afganistan."

Obviously this edit is fairly inflammatory, but the editor who removed it did not claim it violated BLP. If it had solely violated BLP, then the best thing to do would have been to remove the bias instead of removing all the content as if the event never happened. This is the point I'm trying to make.

However, Hannity's statement on waterboarding is an example of "recentism" and thus should not be present in the Sean Hannity article at this time. "Recentism" was the reason given for removing it in the first place, not "BLP".Stargnoc (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it is both a BLP problem and a case of recentism, one follows the other. As I stated, I believe it properly belongs in the article about his show. It was added there and I never made any case to remove it. But I believe that in the BIOGRAPHY of Hannity, recentism applies. In case you haven't bothered to read that one, here are a couple of passages I feel apply:
  
  

"Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention. Established articles may be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens..."

"The "ten-year test" is one simple thought experiment which may be helpful: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I would submit that the answer to that question is no. About a month has passed since the event and news coverage of it has dried up. Even 2 weeks afterwards, media coverage was essentially finished. If the story isn't getting coverage 2-4 weeks afterwards, I'd say the 10 year test is answered. Now, considering that I believe this to be a case of recentism, then take that to the BLP standards. I guess I could have been more clear about the progression, but I didn't think I was going to need to spell out the steps without being called a liar and a hypocrite. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm already well aware of the application of recentism. Nowhere does BLP mention recentism. I'm sensing a confrontational tone on your part again and I'm not sure this is going anywhere, so how's about we be done with it?

• I didn't say that BLP mentions recentism. But it does address about giving undue weight to relatively trivial events (which this was), generally contentious information and news spikes (which is all this was, a news spike for a couple of days, then poof, it was gone). You engaged in a flat out personal attack, calling me a liar and a hypocrite, yet worry about a "confrontational tone" you "sense"? Sorry if that strikes me as a bit strange sounding. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this is what you're referring to: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality." I would agree that the edit made by another user probably violated this tenet of BLP. You're right. But I'm also right that you exhibited a confrontational tone in your statements, as you continue to do. In summary, you're misguided.
• I haven't been confrontational with you. I haven't called you names (like you've done to me). I haven't called you "misguided", ignorant or characterized you in any way. I have been very direct in my responses. Now I'm not sure if you find being direct "confrontational", but if that is the case, you're going to find a lot of people on here that you believe are "confrontational". I also find it odd that you say you are a new editor, but want to jump in with the name calling and telling me how misguided I am about policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should 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) 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

You claim you're leaving the article and that , but take the extensive amount of time needed to file that request. Whatever man. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: If at some point the obstacles in the way of successfully editing the article are removed I may consider coming back to the article, sure.Stargnoc (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• In any case, you skipped some steps in the DR process. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Haven't really been checking in lately, but rather than get all personal with each other, why don't we go here and work to improve the article. Whether or not you think it needs improvement, Blaxos was nice enough to go through the trouble of creating it, and Niteshift36 weighed in, in a very civil and concise fashion. Perhaps this is a new beginning. A return to normalcy, if you will.FuriousJorge (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Until Niteshift36 is restricted from editing the article very little progress will be made. However, Wikipedia is very ineffective at restricting disruptive editing when it's supported by the moderators.Jayhammers (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Now your agenda is exposed. You don't want compromise or anything. You just stated you want me restricted from the article. Period. Well your arbitration request went down 5 to 0, so I don't see a topic ban in the immediate future. However, I will keep track of this post from you though, as evidence of your campaign against me personally. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You are a plague upon the Sean Hannity article, and as such I want you, personally, to never again compromise the sanctity of said article. The reason my arbitration request was not accepted was not that my concerns were invalid but that wikipedia's policies dictate that I must follow a long, ineffective path before squelching your "contributions" to an article. It's a problem with wikipedia that users like you, who exist only to obstruct and obfuscate the truth, are favored over those who try to bring truth to articles.Stargnoc (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• See, you miss the fact that what you call "truth" and what others define the word to mean aren't always the same thing. And following steps are part of the process. Another process is the Wikiquette alert noticeboard, where you will find a new discussion about you and your personal attack against me above.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Stargnoc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other editors, and avoid personal attacks.

Good day. I would like to remind you that you should assume good faith of other editors during content disputes, as the majority of the time everyone wants to improve the project but have different views. The best way to deal with this would be to calmly discuss the content dispute on the relevant talk pages, allowing all editors, including uninvolved ones, to have their say and determine the best path of action. Please do not attack other editors, as this is not constructive the the project. Additionally, as your RFAR was declined, you may not attempt to "ban" another editor from editing a specific article. No one owns pages on Wikipedia, however if you contest content on a page then you may use talk pages to gain concensus. I have also replied with similar comments to the WQA you are involved in. Hope this helps, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)