User talk:Winger84/Archive1

Thoughts after a block

Written in a stream of consciousness between 1 and 2AM local time, 8/31/08

I am writing this after experiencing my second block in a span of about two weeks, which is a point that I had no intention of ever reaching on Wikipedia. Granted, nobody ever intends to be blocked, but as I've stated in one of my common RfA questions, there are sometimes occasions where an editor - in this case, yours truly - becomes so determined that they are correct, either in a specific edit, or in my case, the tagging of two different articles in attempts to maintain the two Wikipedia policies that I hold most dear, BLP and neutrality. Let's examine what happened in each situation, shall we?

Block #1: 3RR in relation to Fred Phelps

I will preface this section with the statement that I have absolutely zero love for "Pastor" Fred Phelps, nor his "church". I am not a religious person, so I can not reasonably make a statement in regard to whether or not I feel they represent what Baptists truly stand for or not. What I do know is that they engage in activities that I find deplorable, most notably protesting at the funerals of military personnel and persecuting homosexuals. While I personally condemn both acts, I still believe that the articles pertaining to Mr. Phelps and the WBC deserve just as much respect as any other article here on Wikipedia. This is where I got in trouble and found myself being blocked for the first time, as I violated 3RR.

I recognize that Phelps and the WBC are notable and / or notorious for their anti-homosexual activities and their opinion that military personnel are dying in action because of the United States' overall acceptance (at least in society, if not officially) of homosexuality. However, I firmly believe that since we are trying to write an encyclopedia that is viewable by anyone - in this country or others - with Internet access, we must present the facts in as neutral a fashion as possible. Hence, I took offense to the inclusion of the terms "anti-homosexual" and "homophobic" in the article lead. My course of action was to remove those tags from the lead and begin a talk page thread in an attempt to reach a consensus about their inclusion.

In the course of discussion on the talk page, the conversation became heated, at times. During the conversation, other editors began to revert my removal of those words from the lead. I errored in judgement by reverting those actions, with a note in my edit summaries to please participate in - or at least wait for - the consensus discussion. In the heat of the moment, I crossed the threshold of 3RR. I was blocked for it and I immediately fought the block on my talk page. After a mid-length discussion, I was unblocked after promising not to edit war again.

Block #2: 3RR in relation to Sarah Palin

On the day that Alaska governor Sarah Palin was chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, I made two major errors.

1. I got involved with an article that I knew was going to be a hotbed of activity on that day. This is not necessarily the error, as I enjoy being involved in active articles. The error was that I chose to get involved in an active article relating to the Republican Party, knowing that I am a registered Democrat and that I feel very strongly about this year's Presidential election. So, before even really taking the time to read the article, I came into the situation with a chip on my shoulder, which leads us to...

2. After reading the article on Governor Palin, I found it very hard to believe that not only had Senator McCain made a phenomenal choice for a VP candidate, but that she appeared to be ~~pretty clean~~... strike that, very clean. In part because of my dislike of the Republican Party and in part because of my own slightly-pessimistic view on life, I found it difficult to comprehend that the article was in good shape, in regard to neutrality. For whatever reason, I "knew" that there had to be a POV problem. I tagged the article as such and then opened a discussion on the talk page. As with the Phelps article, someone disagreed, removed the tag, and I - not thinking clearly - reverted three times, which is - of course - the limit in a 24-hour period under 3RR. Then, not necessarily because I knew that I was going to be reverted again and I could not revert that edit, I compromised with challenging the article as "something copied directly from her (Governor Palin) website or the Republican Party's." In hindsight, the article - while leaning slightly pro-Palin, was fairly neutral and written about as well as it could have been... but again, my passion and belief that I was acting in the best interests of the project (in a quest to maintain "neutrality") got the best of me. Another editor felt that the AD tag that I replaced NPOV with was incorrect and removed it. I reverted, again three times. Technically, I could do that, under 3RR. At least, that was how I understood the policy. While I still believe that is a flaw in the policy, that a different issue should count as a clean slate to the 3RR status, I now know that I was wrong.

Consequences of my actions

Prior to my blocks, I believe that I had a pretty clean record here on Wikipedia. Sure, I had been involved in a few heated discussions, but I think each ended fairly well and in a result that was in the best interests of the project. I had made an unsuccessful run at adminship in which an ill-advised strong suggestion to an editor who was violating copyright laws was perceived as a legal threat and was probably the one thing that kept me from having any chance whatsoever at succeeding in my request for the mop. However, I had taken a few lessons away from that process and was preparing to make another run sometime in late September or early October.

Unfortunately, after my two blocks, I do not believe that I am in a position to be able to earn enough support to ever succeed at RfA. By my own standards, I can not even justify a run for at least 4-6 months. In the big picture, this is not a big deal (with credit to Jimbo for the phrase), but it is more of a personal blow to my goals and ambitions to help the project in the long term. I believe that I have what it takes to be a quality administrator someday, based on my knowledge of a few areas and my willingness to dedicate a good deal of time to what we're doing around here. But, I know that I am a long way from being trusted again by a group of users who have been "in the loop" of both blocks, which is unfortunate in many ways.

Where do I go from here?

Sadly, I can't change the past. In the countless hours that I have spent on Wikipedia over the last year (Tuesday marks my one-year anniversary as a registered user), one of my ambitions in regard to the project is very likely going to have been derailed by about two hours' worth of blind determination and inability to take a step back from the situation(s) and really see through what was going on. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not life and death for me... or for anyone else, for that matter. Wikipedia is a hobby and one that can be rather enjoyable, at that.

To anyone that may be still be reading this at this point, I first say "thank you" for taking a few minutes to hear me out, so to speak. I know that I acted foolishly and that many folks may be very hesitant to trust me for some time. I know that I am probably going to have to work that much harder to make my thoughts and opinions valued once again. But, that is a challenge that I am willing to accept, in hopes that I can regain lost trust at some point.

My plan of action

Work harder on communication and the process of establishing consensus, when a situation arises that becomes heated.
Stick to, as Keeper76 suggested, a policy of 1RR.
Be wary of articles that I know are going to be problems for me, specifically certain political articles. Keep my edits to those articles very basic, unless either absolutely essential or supported by an established consensus.
Work harder on remembering that Wikipedia is a hobby, not life and death.

Thanks for reading. --Winger84 (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your report to AN

I talked to someone who could fix it. Information removed. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already deleted the revision. You may wish to send an email to WP:OVERSIGHT, in order to ensure the information is not mistakenly restored in the future. - auburnpilot talk 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Winger84,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

I had a few concerns, but I'm going to trust that this was a learning experience. So you've got it.--chaser - t 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm having some difficulty getting it to run on my computer, but I will look at it further tomorrow. --Winger84 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

How is Josephine notable, it hasn't done any damage, made landfall, or even killed anyone! I the article was longer with more information such as a storm history section, I would keep it but in this current state, I would redirect again! --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: (ok, maybe four)

Welcome back to Wikipedia! Your contributions are valuable and valued, and I'm glad you're here.
Happy anniversary! You've had quite the year, bringing in the "new year" with quite the "fireworks" (that's meant lighthearted, if you take it otherwise, I'll block you. Shit. That's meant lighthearted too, I don't mean it. Just glad to see the "retired template" off your talkpage -- you've done too much good here to let us bastard admins drag you down).
A barnstar is in order, I've read your reincarnated talkpage, and I am thrilled to see you re-enjoying wikipedia. If you ever need any editor assistance, or an admin shield against "the crazy persons" out there to make this a less enjoyable hobby (you, sir, are not one of the crazy persons), let me know who to blast out of here). So with that, here's your barnstar:

- Barnstar moved to Awards page -

and finally #4: the 1RR restriction is self-imposed, not community imposed. Its a very good way to do things, from a stress standpoint, but don't feel "bound" by it, beyond getting help/outside opinions when you need them. Wikipedia is not nearly important enough to do battle on the articles (that's why they all have talkpages, and egads, have you looked at Palin's??? What a f***in hornet's nest...). Be well, have fun, and hit up my talkpage when the crazies come knockin :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Keeper. Your comments mean a lot, especially considering the past week or so that I've had around these parts! --Winger84 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA, although it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback; I’m sorry that I hadn’t displayed enough progress for you, but hopefully I can see you around Wikipedia and perhaps gain your trust then. Until then, I wish you luck in all your wiki-on-goings, and thanks again for the vote!--daniel folsom 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing title of thread (when it wasn't necessary)

Right, because someone is going to take "You can stand under my pile of bills" SO seriously, that there will be lawsuits flying left and right over this. If that's the case, then the whole discussion should be erased as well because that said more about the bankruptcy rumors then the title ever did. There is nothing wrong with the title (and yes, I read WP:BLP more than once so you don't have point it out to me. I know this doesn't count as a violation against the policy). You just insist on having the last word. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Having the last word" has nothing to do with why I've changed the title of that thread, actually. The title that you want to use still implies fact, rather than rumor, to someone who may be unfamiliar with the situation. As such, it should not be used, under BLP. Posing the title of the thread as a question of whether or not she is bankrupt is decidedly more neutral in view and does not violate BLP. --Winger84 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone who knows nothing about the situation does come across it, they will take the time to read the thread and realize we were discussing if the rumor should be added to the article or not. But it was pointed out that the sources weren't strong enough to validate the story as a true one, so it was not made a part of the article. That discussion pretty much said everything. I can understand you don't want "BREAKING NEWS" as the title of the thread, but the second one I added is harmless and even someone who has never visited Wikipedia coming across this wouldn't take it so seriously that they would alert the Associated Press about it. It is nothing more than a joke title, and anyone could see that. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Sorry. --Winger84 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Lewis

Hi, I have reverted your edit to Leona Lewis. Forgive Me is her next single, whilst Better in Time may be gaining air play in America, it reached it's peak in the United Kingdom in March.

Sources

Official Video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TbObeE6s1I8

Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/203-5913999-6580765?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=forgive+Leona

Lewis' Official Site: http://www.leonalewismusic.co.uk/index.php/news/entry/forgive_me_video_yahoo_and_e4_exclusives

81.96.131.189 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those that is a third-party neutral source is Amazon. Even then, just because the single is available for purchase, that does not mean that the single is the next radio record. Per this reasoning, I have reverted your edit. Please start a thread on the article's talk page before making any additional changes on this particular item. Thanks! --Winger84 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am user 81.96.131.189, I created this account after you suggested it on the "Edit summary" on the 81.96.131.189 talk page! Not to avoid any rule like you said!

You said you "understand" the rule on the edit summary, but do not explain it. Please could you explain why it doesn't apply so I dont make the same mistake somewhere else? Thank you. LeonaLewisObsessive (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you appear to have just admitted to sock puppetry. --Winger84 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have just created an account. I am no longer using the IP. The IP isn't an account. And what is this "3RR" rule you're accusing me of?LeonaLewisObsessive (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]