User talk:Fairchoice: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:53, 1 February 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Fairchoice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me my talk page. Again, welcome! dave souza, talk 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Other accounts?

Hi - given that you've jumped into some fairly heated debates, may I ask if you edit using any other accounts, or if your participation here was solicited? MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn against, and report vandalism. Your report was not a case of obvious vandalism, and as a result, the user has not been blocked and the request may have been removed from the page. Next time please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for reporting a complex abuse or refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you have a dispute with the user. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the dispute

Hi - I removed the dispute from WP:AIV because it's not a clear case of vandalism, which is all that's handled there. You're welcome to list it at WP:ANI, though I don't think it'll get far. Please do not readd it to AIV, it's inappropriate for that venue. - Philippe | Talk 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also remind you that your post was only removed from the talk page temporarily, as it should have been at the bottom of the page. The editor concerned wrote his response at the same time as moving the post to the bottom - [1]. Hut 8.5 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID

Hi, I see you're interested in intelligent design. Articles have to comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that are particularly relevant are:

Hope you find that a useful clarification. .. dave souza, talk 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Wikipedia is not in any need of people coming here to pursue crusades or ideological agendas. If you carry on as you are, then your editing career may be short and turbulent. Please take the time to read the five pillars of Wikipedia, and above all, check your opinions at the door. Not everybody can do this, those who can are valued contributors, those who cannot may be shown the door. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have tried to explain the problem to you, and you have failed to listen. Simply saying that, in effect, "this article is teh suck", helps nobody. Please stop attacking everybody on the project who disagrees with you (which as far as I can see is everybody you've come across thus far), and start making concrete, specific, positive and actionable suggestions. "This is POV" is useless to us, "I suggest changing paragraph 3 to read as follows:" and some line-by-line suggestions would be helpful in a way that everything you've done so far is not. Please take this to heart and act on it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you have continued your tendentious editing and have failed to acknowledge or learn form the numerous good faith comments made to you, I have blocked you from editing. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fairchoice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All I am saying is that we need a neutral unbiased description of the film and THEN bash the film. Wikipedia NPOV instructions forbid bashing the film when describing the plot and further bashing the film Furthermore, indefinite block is abuse of the admins power and shows his temper. He will justify it by his "warning" but it was just a show and an excuse because he wanted to do it and said he would (said your editing career will be short). I am no religious zealot and want to bash the film but in a fair way. All my writings have been explained in talk pages and have been modified after objections even though the objectors never compromised and often didn't explain. Wikipedia should NOT let JzG block all others except those that agree.-----Look at my last talk page edit....I follow WP MOS, if not please tell me what is in violation. We have consensus for NPOV. IF you violate NPOV, you violate consensus, even if you have a mob of POV warriors. Let's make sure we don't violate NPOV. What's the opposition to my edits as I have added nothing pro-film, just removed NPOV. I have kept paragraphs and just moved them around so the anti-film stuff is together.Fairchoice (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed" That is NOT tenacious editing. I kept other's paragraphs and just made a small organizational change to see if reasonable people would agree and as a small step in fixing the article. I am being blocked for ideological reasons. ---- There is a serious flaw with the blocking administrator. He says that I am not NPOV but he is but look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves By this, we must describe the film in a neutral way before we bash it, we shouldn't have a negative description of the plot to begin with and then bash it...............http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help By the blocking administrator's own instructions, I will go through dispute resolution. Unblock me to allow this if you want me to take this route, if you don't, then unblock me and let me explain on talk pages the NPOV way

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for your opinions, but for your unseemly conduct. I am inclined to agree with JzG's assessment, in particular given your unnecessarily aggressive unblock request ("everyone but me is the problem!"), but I agree that an immediate indefinite block might not be warranted. I may be inclined to talk with JzG about unblocking you if you convince me that you have understood why you are blocked and show how you intend to productively contribute in accordance with our norms of conduct, preferably to some other article than Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. — Sandstein (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fairchoice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I may be inclined to talk with JzG about unblocking you if you convince me that you have understood why you are blocked and show how you intend to productively contribute in accordance with our norms of conduct, preferably to some other article than Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.......Thank you for your offer. I must say that it is a conflict of interest to ask JzG for his opinion because he has every reason to defend his own block. Even you question that indefinite block is not right. I intend to offer useful criticism and solutions to improve the article. The repeated use of the word "claims" is negative. You don't use that in other articles (you don't say that Bush or Clinton or Gordon Brown claims...). I hope to fix that. I want a neutral article that includes plenty of criticism, not a biased article that is hell bent on slamming the film. After some minor fixes, I can move to other completely different articles, like botany and football. In contrast, religious zealots want no criticism and abortion zealots want total criticism. I am the voice of reason

Decline reason:

Taking a look at your contributions, I see that the block is completely justified. Have you even read WP:NPOV? — Yamla (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On the one hand, you have a point: disclaiming EVERYthing with "claims" or "alleges" gets to a point where it sounds like the article is purposely painting a negative picture. And the article may be unbalanced. On the other hand, your solution to this was to remove all the language that describes the things in the film as claims, which distorts things badly in the opposite direction, and apparently did so repeatedly. Mango juice^talk 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice:
1. Do not be angry.
2. Take Mangofuice's advice, edit slowly and with discussion even if others don't discuss. You are here to improve Wikipedia even if other's don't.
3. Proofread your edits so that there is no accusatory tone, which may even be unintended.
4. I'm not unblocking you right now because this would create controversy. Cooperation, even if I don't fully agree, is necessary. Note to other admins: My reasons for unblock are as a result of others comments, see Sandstein "but I agree that an immediate indefinite block might not be warranted." and Mangojuice "On the one hand, you have a point: disclaiming EVERYthing with "claims" or "alleges" gets to a point where it sounds like the article is purposely painting a negative picture. And the article may be unbalanced." Archtransit (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked. The unblocking is automatically set for 48 hours from now. Have a cup of tea and come back on Friday. Archtransit (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not set a block expiry is that this user has shown absolutely no sign of accepting that there is any problem with his behaviour. I don't mind your setting an expiry, provided you are content to assist in monitoring this editor's behaviour and reblocking if the problems continue. I'm not convinced this user has any intention of being anything other than a warrior, but would be happy to be proved wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

If you want to change a "claim" or two to "state", so what. However, we do not just cut huge swaths of sourced material out of an article because you personally do not like it. There was far more material supporting the film's thesis as I wrote to you a couple of times before, and it was removed because people thought it was too much of a paen of praise to the film. I disagree and would like my material that is pro-creationist and pro-ID restored. The answer is not to remove what you do not like in a fit of pique, but to restore the balancing material so one has a fuller article. I said this to you a couple of times and somehow this has not quite sunk in. Do you understand what I am saying here? You cannot do what you have been doing or you will get more blocks etc. We can put the previously deleted material that is pro-ID and pro-creationist back in however for balance. Get it?--Filll (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever helpful, I've added some advice on the talk page.[2] In a nutshell, study the linked policies carefully, and discuss your proposals on the article talk page instead of edit warring. .. dave souza, talk 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am back

I am back. Of course, I am going to be good. You will notice that I did not create any sockpuppets to edit the movie article.

I am shocked that someone would compare me to Profg. I am not pro-intelligent design. I merely want a neutral summary of the plot of the film. After that section, then others are slam the film. When you see the plot in other Wikipedia articles, commentary of the film comes after the plot. Fairchoice (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained to you previously, this is generally frowned upon and deprecated. Want the links to read up on the policy?

This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Wikipedia.

For example, from [3]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).--Filll (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis There is a plot section. Expelled should have the same. In the Nemesis article, later there is a description of the bloopers (why the film is bad) and deleted scenes. The Expelled should have the same thing. First a neutral description of the scenes in the film. Later there should be analysis of the film. This analysis should be NPOV but CAN include some harsh criticism.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_the_Flesh_%281986_film%29 The 2nd paragraph describes the film in a neutral way. A separate paragraph (3rd) talks about the sex controversy. Fairchoice (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot be responsible for all articles on WP. We can only work on a few. And the consensus was that this format is appropriate for this film, and as you can see by the links above, is encouraged by many on WP. So you are free to disagree with that choice and the consensus and WP policy, but you are not free to force others to adopt your position. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:FILM. I only want to follow the Manual of Style. We NEED a plot section. Even if we waterdown the plot section and simply list the actors and the scenes and leave out what the actors advocate, we need a plot section.Fairchoice (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually neither of us has seen the film, so we cannot do more than talk about what is in the early reviews, the trailers, the interviews, the other controversies in the press. Maybe in about 4 or 5 or 6 months there will be enough information around to rewrite it, possibly in a fashion that you suggest. For now, we don't know much, do we?--Filll (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the plot section should be short and just include a few known facts like who is being interviewed. Fairchoice (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the movie is not out yet, why not delete the whole thing? Go ahead and put it up for AfD. Let's see what people think. --Filll (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A serious proposal? You can nominate it for AFD. I will not. Fairchoice (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one complaining. I am not. I wrote 95% of it. And I just included a few more K of positive material. So....--Filll (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote 95% of it? You have done a lot of writing! As I said, my main interest is to keep a factual, neutral plot section near the beginning of the article. The people section is sort of that section now - that's ok with me. Fairchoice (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:34, 1 February 2008 edit Filll (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 34,790 edits →‎I am back: r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:53, 1 February 2008 edit undo Fairchoice (talk \| contribs) 114 edits →‎I am back Next edit →
Line 93:		Line 93:

	You are the one complaining. I am not. I wrote 95% of it. And I just included a few more K of positive material. So....--[[User:Filll\|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll\|talk]]) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)		You are the one complaining. I am not. I wrote 95% of it. And I just included a few more K of positive material. So....--[[User:Filll\|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll\|talk]]) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

			:You wrote 95% of it? You have done a lot of writing! As I said, my main interest is to keep a factual, neutral plot section near the beginning of the article. The people section is sort of that section now - that's ok with me. [[User:Fairchoice\|Fairchoice]] ([[User talk:Fairchoice#top\|talk]]) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)