User talk:TheNeutralityDoctor: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:09, 5 July 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Rush's Algore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me finish?"

In this revert, you write "Let me finish." Finish what, exactly? Why are you reverting back in factually inacurate material? Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am done now. I was trying to clarify the statements as being examples of satirical humor and not scientific facts. You have been misrepresenting what these sources actually say by treating them as something they are not. I will post on the talk page about this. --Rush's Algore (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning!

The Gore Effect is covered under WP:BLP. And material that is solely sourced to blogs or other dubious sourcing is not acceptable under that policy. See WP:SPS for acceptable circumstances where such material can be used.

Do please keep in mind that the Gore effect is a slur on a living person - thus reliable sources are particular important. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a slur, it is satire. Regardless, the text you are objecting to only states that Gore sent a tweet about April which we know is true, and that the next day snow was forecast (and actually fell) which we also know is true. Neither of these is a slur as far as I can see. Please explain how these are slurs. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Satire is used to slur someone (quote from Satire: "its purpose is often not so much humour for its own sake as an attack on something strongly disapproved by the satirist, using the weapon of wit."). But lets call it satire - it still has to adhere to our rules of sourcing. And blogs are never acceptable (except under very limited conditions) in articles - and especially not one covered by WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reinserted it again[1] i see - do please read WP:BLP and do please focus on WP:BLPSPS. This is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine and dandy but, again, how is an accurate statement that Gore sent a tweet a BLP violation? If it's not a violation you have no grounds for asserting BLP standards as being applicable ... at least as far as I can see. And how is an accurate statement that mother nature dumped snow on Colorado even approaching a BLP violation? So, how are we expected to address out disagreement because you taking the text out and me putting it back in seems a waste of everyone's time?

And as far as I can see after quickly reviewing the above policies I still disagree that they apply in this situation. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPS these blogs fall under none of the exceptions (not an expert - no evidence of editorial control). Thats strike 1. Strike 2 is that the material is about a living person WP:BLP (specifically Al Gore). Satire is not an excuse to void policy. Do also please note this section:

This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

Don't. Just. Don't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's contentious about whether Al Gore sent the tweet? Do you dispute it? What's contentious about mother nature dropping snow on Colorado? Do you dispute it happened? These are the pertinent facts being discussed, no? --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about Gore? (yes it is). Is Gore a living person? (I think so). Is it questionably sourced? (yes it is). Does WP:BLP allow this? (No it doesn't). Does it matter whether it is negative/positive/neutral? (No it doesn't). READ THE POLICY. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you should be in doubt about the "slur" part - then this comment shows it rather efficiently. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? That comment discusses ridiculing and criticizing Gore, not the use of the term "The Gore Effect". I don't consider the two to be equivalent. I disagree that the latter is a slur, it is simply a joke made at the expense of a celebrity. This happens to all celebrities. No one actually thinks the effect is real, except perhaps the satirically challenged and those who demonstrate a profound lack of a sense of humor. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly do you think ridicule is? Do you think that it is acceptable under WP:BLP? Do you think that because it is humor it somehow voids WP:BLP? Bad sourcing is not acceptable under WP:BLP - no matter if its positive/negative/neutral. And BLP is by far the policy taken most seriously on Wikipedia. Don't play with it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are equating the accurate statement that Gore sent a tweet with ridicule. This is obviously a fallacious position to take. You are also equating the topic of the article, "The Gore Effect", with ridicule which is equally fallacious. If you were correct on the latter point the article itself would not be allowed to exist, and yet here it is. Reading the comments on the deletion thingie I don't see everyone claiming it is a BLP violation so you seem to be on thin ice with your assertion. Either way I am obviously no expert but there must be experts around that can resolve the issue, no? How do we find such people? --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's a slur or satire or even praise is entirely beside the point. We have very specific standards regarding sources for comments about living people. That's what matters here. Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "comment about a living person", it makes no judgment of the man either way. That he sent a tweet is verifiably true. I sincerely doubt that making verifiably true statements violates the policy. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you get a third opinion at the BLP noticeboard as to the appropriateness of using Twitter. Guettarda (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Rush's Algore, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it It could be seen as derogatory towards ~~democrats as a group.~~ Al Gore. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising your concern with me as I wish to adhere to Wikipedia policy in this regard. I do not believe that my user name says anything about "democrats as a group", be it derogatory or otherwise. Could you please explain why you believe this is the case as I may simply not be seeing the same connection that you are. Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge deal, especially if you're not aware, but if you look at http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en#q=%22algore%22&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=v&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=blg:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wb&fp=1&cad=b it's sometimes used as a negative euphamism for Gore. So really, it's my mistake for saying democrats in general. Still, it could possibly cause controversy. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am aware of the use of "Algore" by Rush Limbaugh as a humorous reference for "Al Gore", obviously, so we are talking about the same thing only disagreeing on the scope of the reference. Still your point is well taken and I shall take your advice under consideration. Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my user name per this request. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, I see you started editing on June 11. I'm curious, have you edited in the past under another account name? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? Have I done something wrong? --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries match up perfectly with a certain community banned user. Would you say this is a coincidence? Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt that using edit summaries is a particularly unique identifier so yes, it would appear that we have a coincidence. What is it about my edit summaries that you feel is so unique? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding sock puppetry. The thread is User:GoRight and User:TheNeutralityDoctor (formerly User:Rush's Algore).The discussion is about your account. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, TheNeutralityDoctor, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

And that's before we even start applying the duck test. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply prejudice name harassment ... for a similar example see: User:Neutrality is a fine up standing Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct but given all the controversy surrounding this account I might as well just start fresh. Thank you for your support.

I was going to add the following information to the GoRight SPI page where I (i.e. TheNeutralityDoctor) am currently being debated. I offer it now not in support of myself because I intend to move on to another account, but in support of GoRight whom I have inadvertently drawn into question.

Hipocrite seems to be implying, or at least he is not pointing out, what B has pointed out and that is that simply because GoRight and I happen to properly use punctuation we must be the same person is simply fallacious thinking.

So I decided to check into some of the other names on the list of people he identified. He seemed to think that Poodleboy and Grundle2600 were the most suspicious so I started there. Poodleboy does not seem to use the "new section" convention when creating section headers which makes his stats hard to count. Given that I moved on to Grundle2600. Counting back through Grundle2600's contributions using the browser's search function looking for "new section" here's what I found:

With ".": 33

Without: 37

Other: 29

This is for December 1, 2009 through present. I stopped counting at December 1, 2009 simply because continuing would have been a silly exercise in tedium.

I am emphatically NOT saying that I am Grundle2600 (obviously, duh). Indeed I believe this whole exercise is ridiculous, but what this does show is that none of GoRight, Grundle2600, nor I are unique in our statistical variations in this respect. There will be others who likewise vary from the norm in this respect and given the size of the editor pool on Wikipedia there could be literally hundreds of people who run afoul of this silly little test.

If you look at the contribution histories of other people, including Hipocrite himself, you will find that while it may not be a high percentage of their section headers people do put punctuation there. Just bring up a couple of thousand edits of someone's history and then use the browser search to look for ".: new section". It will take you directly to where they have used this construct.

So, using Hipocrite as a test subject for December 1, 2009 through present he has used this construct approximately 32 times himself. That's a rate comparable to Grundle2600 in terms of uses per month. Hipocrite's percentage of "." to none or other will be much lower, however, owing primarily to the long winded nature of the test subject.

In any event as a test of uniqueness for a particular individual this whole "." in section headers idea seems rather dubious.

Cheers,

--TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you don't appear to be blocked or ever have been. Nor would a user name block be anything resembling acceptable. I'm not sure why JzG left that template. He may have intended to leave the template {{uw-username}}. You are not currently blocked (at least not by name - if your IP were blocked, I wouldn't know.) Whether you are or are not GoRight is a separate issue. I happen to believe that you are, though, as I said, that's a separate issue. --B (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what that was about, sorry, all, perhaps my brain was addled after suffering concussion last Friday. As you were, everyone. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand all the fuss. TheNeutralityDoctor should just pick a different name. Case solved. Seems crazy to ban a user over something this trivial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The sockpuppet investigation was closed as inclusive inconclusive because there was a lack of definitive evidence to support the allegation.[2] Why was this account blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In'conclusive? That was merely for the CU evidence. But, as I understand it, the behavioural evidence was thought convincing, as was the use of open proxies by both GR and TND. Can think of a good reason why GR would wish to edit from an open proxy? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was for the sockpuppet investigation as a whole. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. If this conclusion was reached elsewhere, can you show me where, please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People edit from open proxies for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with sockpuppetry. The fact that two users edited with open proxies in no way suggests that they are the same user. Note that the user is not blocked for abusing multiple accounts, however. He is blocked for "disruptive editing. See User talk: Coren for his explanation that the proxies of the two users cannot be compared, and no conclusion can be made about whether or not this user is a sock of another user. What's interesting is that William M. Connolley inquired about the open proxies on Coren's talk page at 9:21 AM (CST), and this block coincidentally happened by NW less than thirty minutes later. Weird. By the way, I stumbled upon by way of Coren's talk page. Minor4th • talk 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most or all of that is wrong. In particular, TND's block log says 2010-07-05T14:47:35 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked TheNeutralityDoctor (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight) so TND *is* indeed blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". Are you having problems reading the log? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~(edit conflict)~~
But he has not actually abused multiple accounts has he, he used the algore one and then changed it to this mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why was he blocked for sockpuppetry if the sockpuppet investigation came up empty? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 ::::People edit from open proxies for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with sockpuppetry.   The fact that two users edited with open proxies in no way suggests that they are the same user.  Note that the user is not blocked for abusing multiple accounts, however.   He is blocked for "disruptive editing.  See [[User talk: Coren]] for his explanation that the proxies of the two users cannot be compared, and no conclusion can be made about whether or not this user is a sock of another user.  What's interesting is that William M. Connolley inquired about the open proxies on Coren's talk page at 9:21 AM (CST), and this block coincidentally happened by NW less than thirty minutes later.  Weird. By the way, I stumbled upon by way of Coren's talk page.   <span style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #999999;padding:0px;background:#FFFFff">[[User:Minor4th|<b span style="color:#000000;font-size:110%;"><font face="papyrus">Minor</b><b span style="color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;">4th</font face></b>]] [[User talk:Minor4th|<b span style="color:#000000;font-size:60%;">• talk</b>]]</span> 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 ::::: Most or all of that is wrong. In particular, TND's block log says ''2010-07-05T14:47:35 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked TheNeutralityDoctor  (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight)'' so TND *is* indeed blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". Are you having problems reading the log? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
+{{ec}}
+:::::But he has not actually abused multiple accounts has he, he used the algore one and then changed it to this [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::So why was he blocked for sockpuppetry if the sockpuppet investigation came up empty?  [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)