User talk:Tycoon24/Archive May 2009

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New American Tea Party. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How is 1 revert a edit war? Also, please do not delete facts from Wikipedia. It is against Wikipedia policy to intentionally hide or cover truth from any article. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Attack Pages

I would kindly request that you delete the recent changes you have made to your user page, as they constitute the creation of an attack page and seem to violate WP:NPA. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I will point you towards WP:UP#NOT particularly numbers 9 and 10. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I read over the list of topics and what not have on my user page; however, I don't seem to violate #9 because I'm not "attacking" or vilifying groups with polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia. I will be sure and not use polemical libel claims. If you disagree, can you be more specific which claim I have made specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory?

I also looked into #10 and found that what I have written are not material statements attacking anyone; in fact, I am merely discussing quite the opposite, exposing attacks on others including myself. If you feel that I am wrong, can you please explain to me which specific words or sentence I have written that are explicitly attacking others? More on that - #10 also states, "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner." Thus, how can you be certain I am not preparing for a dispute resolution process by means? If this is the case, then unless I cannot do so in "timely manner" it seems I am permitted to continue the process.

In the future, if it turns out some of what I have written is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I am allowed a "timely manner" to have it placed on a personal web site.

I also read through the section, "What may I have on my user page." Thus, if I am holding others accountable for the things they write--that are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines--and with which is also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working, this is allowable. So far, in all my time using Wikipedia, not a single user has been polite to me, and not a single user has treated me with the respect and civility that is expected of editors. I'm fed up with it, so I'm holding others accountable when they interact with me in such a way.

The section explaining Allowable Material, it also states, "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." Thus, as long as my opinions are constructive and are in-line with my opinion on certain Wikipedia policies that should be changed - I am not violating any rule on my User page.

And finally, the section you referenced for me does state this, "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so – such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." Thus, if I find a consensus of members in the Wikipedia community disagree with what I have wrote, then I will remove it.

Thank you. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I view this as a personal attack

"I repeat. This is NOT a double standard. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)"

And I view this statement as another personal attack.

"This is Tycoon24's Bullying Accountability board, holding those accountable for bullying other editors of opposing views. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)"

That is what I object to, now I will ask politely one more time that you please cease the personal attacks on your user page. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I will delete the quote, "I repeat. This is NOT a double standard." Thanks for clarifying.

I will not delete the constructive opinion to a policy change in this statement, "This is Tycoon24's Bullying Accountability board, holding those accountable for bullying other editors of opposing views" because it is my opinion, and it is within the rules or guidelines as to what is acceptable on my User page. The section explaining Allowable Material, it states, "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." Thus, as long as my opinions are constructive and are in-line with my opinion on certain Wikipedia policies that should be changed - I am not violating any rule on my User page. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to the request for a 3rd opinion. I have reviewed Tycoon24's user page, the links from it, this thread, and WP:USER. Other relevant policies are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

First, Tycoon24, concerning item #10 from WP:USER it is indeed acceptable to record diffs in preparation for dispute resolution. If it is your intent to proceed with a dispute resolution and you are collecting diffs to that end then I certainly do not wish to discourage you from doing that. However, the manner in which you have placed those links gives the appearance of another intent.

The title "This is Tycoon24's Bullying Accountability board, holding those accountable for bullying other editors of opposing views" certainly sounds like you intend to maintain something like a "List of Shame". Such a practice is likely to create drama, as you can see from this thread.

It sounds like you are frustrated by other editors citing Wikipedia policy, and that you feel that you're being obstructed by policy-lawyers who won't let you have a fair shake at editing an article. I would strongly encourage you to take the time to learn Wikipedia's policies as you can. They have been developed by a thoughtful community of editors in order to promote the best possible encyclopedia. If an edit that you propose is in conflict with policy, then please consider that there are probably good reasons why you should not make that edit. Try to find a way to make an edit that does fit with policy - it will save you a lot of time and frustration. It may be helpful to begin with articles that you are interested in but not passionate about politically or otherwise so that it will not be as upsetting if you aren't happy with the article's outcome.

When I see a dispute in which one editor remains cool and cites policy, and the other (user:Jm131284 in this case) makes personal attacks like this one [1], well, that just speaks for itself. Your userpage expresses frustration with Loonymonkey but I think he deserves kudos for dealing with such a thing calmly. The content on your userpage also constitutes a personal attack in its present form. Please remove it unless you are saving the diffs for a pending dispute resolution. If so then please reformat it so that it does not feel like a personal attack on anyone. I would recommend you strip out the title, descriptions, etc. and just maintain a list of links with short notes to remind yourself of what they are. You may even wish to create an unobtrusive user subpage, since the purpose would be to collect the information, and not to make it available to the world.

Reading the diffs that you cited, I would not characterize the behavior of the people you're complaining about as uncivil and certainly not a personal attack on any editor. However, TharsHammar referring to attendees of the teaparties as "teabaggers" is probably a pretty inflammatory and unhelpful thing to do. Here I would say if you know it's going to raise tempers, don't do it. That just impedes progress on the article. Perhaps teapartiers, supporters, or some other appropriately concise term would be preferable.

It should be pointed out that while users are given a wide berth to do as they wish with their user pages, your user page is not yours, it belongs to the community. I hope you can both be civil get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia in accordance with the relevant policies. I haven't addressed any specific article concerns, just the user page, so if you feel that you are being unreasonably obstructed then by all means begin the dispute resolution process. If you have any questions I will do whatever I can to help.

Best regards. Mishlai (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take what the uninvolved user had to say to heart. If the situation does not change soon I will proceed to a further step in Dispute Resolution, the personal attacks will not go unchallenged by me. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder. I'll just remove it and save it on my computer instead. If the issues persist, then I'll re-add and insert more information on the problems you are creating. Tycoon24 (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. If issues persist your best avenue is dispute resolution, and you will get better results from it if no one can find fault in your behavior so keep that in mind too. Cheers. Mishlai (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment to me earlier really did make me think. You're the most cool-headed editors I've run into on Wikipedia, so for your positively-influential input, thank you! When I find the right badge for it, I'll send it your way. Since I am still learning how Wikipedia works, may I request help from you in the future? Your civil and neutral tone will be very appreciated by me! Thanks again for the comments. Tycoon24 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You can definitely ask for help in the future. I'm not an expert myself, but I'll do my best to steer you in the right direction. Mishlai (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Friendly warning, you've made your fourth rvt on the Teapary page, you may wish to self-revert. Soxwon (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll stop then. But it seems like the current Tax Day Tea Party is violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to hide the events that occurred on February 27. The American Tea Party, or Nationwide Chicago Tea Party happened on February 27 and those events led to the Tax Day Tea Party. Why are people trying to hide this from the public? Tycoon24 (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful - edit warring over inserting unreliable sources like these is likely to get you blocked whether you break 3RR or not. Whatever else Smart Girl Politics is, it is (a) a blog, (b) clearly partisan, and (c) a primary source. There's no way that any claim that it makes about something that it has been part of organizing itself is ever going to be accepted as reliable. Certainly if the claims can be backed up with reliable sources then it can be mentioned, but those two sources on their own were about as far from WP:RS as possible. Thanks, Black Kite 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Black Kite, you are out of line. The reliable source you are referring to, and the article with which the reliable source is linking to, it changed. So you are simply using old data to try and--(gasp!)--make me look like I was trying to Wiki-link to an article that has nothing to do with the reliable source you are accusing me of violating the 3RR with. The issue has well and past since before you hopped on board to make accusations against me. The Wikipedia article has changed, I've already made various comments about the changes on several other talk pages, and everyone has moved on but you. Black Kite, you need to relax and stop biting me at every chance you deem fit. Go away and make some productive edits, please! Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I discussed the resolution to the issue Black Kite resurfaced yesterday, here. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The point remains valid. Using unreliable sources to push a clear POV will always be removed, and is not worth edit-warring over. Black Kite 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating hoaxes can be fun, right Black Kite?! Your contributions on my talk page have been nothing but ludicrous, false claims. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar

This [2] is not good. It will be considered a personal attack, a rant, wp:soap, etc. You should remove it yourself rather than waiting for someone to force the issue. It's best to stick to discussing the articles and their content rather than discussing users. Drama is bad, writing an encyclopedia is good. Sometimes it feels good to just get your opinion out there, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. A forum, a blog, or some other outlet would make a safe home for strong opinions - at least in those venues you can say what you want to whether others agree or not. Mishlai (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I just removed it. I'll stick to discussing the issue with you until it gets resolved. You're right, the comments could easily be considered a personal attack. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That statement was completely unacceptable. Do not go on my talk page again, and I will be staying away from your talk page from now on. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 15:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• May 2009 Archive page added. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)