User talk:DJJONE5NY

No Edit Warring![edit]

Reverting previously reverted edits that were made on legitimate grounds is considered edit warring. Per Wikipedia Policy:

Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is considered a breach of Wikiquette and may cause a user to be blocked from editing.

Please find reliable sources to support your claims. Remember, the test is verifiability, not one persons view of the truth.

Further editwarring will be reported to AfC. - Wikiwag 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:V#SELF - Wikiwag 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion[edit]

Greetings DJJONE5NY: I understand your point and vigorously agree that an article should as much as possible, be presented factually and without bias. Rather than reverting one another's edits which frankly does not help anyone, I invite you to this discussion on the Family Foundation School article's talk page. I look forward to reaching consensus on this issue.

For the record, it was I who initiated and fought hard for the ultimately-successful CAFETY article that now appears here. Assuming that this is also you, the fact that I worked so hard to demonstrate your group's noteworthiness and succeeded where you previously failed, should be evidence enough of my good faith. Cheers! - Wikiwag 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Your statement: "but rather an official statement by myself as a board member of CAFETY" clearly reveals you are too close to this subject matter.

Beeblbrox (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DJJONE5NY. You have new messages at Beeblbrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Residential treatment center. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest Jon, that it might be time to listen to the polite admonitions you've received from no fewer that 3 experienced editors (including 1 WP admin) regarding the quality of your edits? The community (and I) will thank you for playing by the rules. - Wikiwag 15:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be constructive[edit]

Jon: The edits you made to the Residential treatment center article frankly bordered on WP:Vandalism. I urge you, if you don't care about working for the constructive improvement of an article, please refrain from editing. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is asking for citation and verifiability vandalism?? after all, isn't it the uncited sources that are getting us in trouble to begin with?DJJONE5NY (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

The request itself is not vandalism, so long as one uses the proper tag for the request. For individual facts, inline templates, such as the Fact Template, are appropriate. It is not appropriate though, to repeatedly use page templates such as Template:Verify and other page templates, such as those appearing here. The latter is what your edits created here. It's also inappropriate to tag as "dubious," a statement that is supported by four different articles, from different studies by different psychiatric experts. While I'm sure good faith is intended in your editing, if you've not already done so, please read and familiarise yourself with the Assume Good Faith guideline. Thank you for helping create a better encyclopedia! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Family Foundation School restarted - stop now.[edit]

Please join in the discussion. That specific link had been discussed HEAVILY, but has not been discussed for some time. Please join the discussion now. I will remove the link tomorrow unless consensus is reached to add it.sinneed (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what is being talked about when I said a link that has no direct reference to FFS is being included while something directly related is being excluded. It's clear bias, whether because you have a bone to pick with those of us adding information you do not like, or because Wikiwag has personally admitted an affiliation with the school. To not include testimonies that are part of a congressional record, yet, to then talk about all the "positives" of the school is blatant bias.DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)DJJONE5[reply]

Please take a step back 'If you don't agree with me Sinneed you are biased, because I see it that way!' - this is bad.
I am allowed to disagree with you. You are allowed to disagree with me. Wiki can (and does) disagree with me. He/she is allowed to do so. If you do NOT step back (and I will accept your retraction now, once), I will warn you for personal attack "you have a bone to pick with those of us adding information you do not like". Don't do it again.

Educate me. Pretend I am ignorant but smart, and wp:assume good faith. I am sorry you don't agree with me, or think you don't. You don't know as you have not discussed.sinneed (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then....explain to me why the link in question is allowed if the link to testimonies of students who have been abused at this school is not? Whether intentional or not, it seems biased. I'll give the benefit of the doubt if you say you are not biased here, but when links to stories of abuse perpetrated by this school is omitted, while praise for its accomplishments is left in...well it seems biased for sure.DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

You were there for the discussion, I think, and I was not. Since you are trying to add it again, I assume you have something new to say. I listen.
I can tell you that I am concerned about "testimonies" that are not at the .gov site... I have to trust the site. I have NO IDEA if that is why this failed consensus before, but I am betting that would be it.
The testimony was already linked. I checked the link myself, and expanded it to cover all the testimony ... "full proceedings" rather than a single individual. I hope that helps.sinneed (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, this is a link to a wiki. Anyone in the known universe, not only the named individuals, can edit those articles. It isn't that they are opinion, it is that they aren't required to be anything at all. A random Wombat in the Outback could log in via satellite today and change them all to "All hail the wonderful FFS! It ruelz!"sinneed (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So if we, at CAFETY, actually compile them off of the wiki, then it's in?DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

How does that help?
I *STRONGLY SUPPORT* including the testimony of anyone who swore in and testified. Those should be on a .gov web site.
I must tell you that as I see it CAFETY's site is a hate site. It does not protect the privacy of the posters, nor of anyone they name.
If you can get any wp:RS to interview your members and quote them, we can easily include that, and I would support it strongly... but that isn't testimony. But you know all that.sinneed (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, edit summaries. I don't know about everyone else, but I am NO good at mind reading.sinneed (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Family Foundation School, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Editorializing in the titles of links is still editorializing. You know better, and have been warned repeatedly. sinneed (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a WP:COI case, here. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you at Family Foundation School?[edit]

If not, I need to pursue them for pretending to be you. The edit claiming to be you is at [1]. Impersonating another editor is very serious and I will pursue this if it is not you.sinneed (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.DJJONE5NY (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

Outstanding.sinneed (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family School Suicide[edit]

I have been having a very hard time trying to get a reference to the suicide that occurred in 2004 on the FFS page. I feel that while this may not hold the same weight as some of the other discussions you have taken part in that it is important to take a stand when it comes to including negative information along with the positive on the FFS wiki to keep it npov. Please take a moment to check it out I feel like im speaking one language and the other few editors posting on there are speaking another. Thanks! CoreEpic (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic[reply]

Thank you for your input to the "debate" about the inclusion of the suicide on the FFS wiki. I personally will not give up on this until it is given the same amount of notice as Jan Cheripko's and Wells Thompson's achievments. It may be a futile argument but I feel that it is important. If you have an opinion on this that youd like to contribute, please do, otherwise again thank you for your input. And yes, I did suffer plenty of abuse at the school, my testimony was one of those submitted to congress http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Emil_Fischer CoreEpic (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic[reply]

Query at FFS.[edit]

I had asked: "So, what is your argument that they should be excluded?" in reference to AISH opinion piece "The At-Risk Teen" by Rabbi Dovid Hochberg and other links you did not name. Are you now content that it should be included? Or? No need to reply, of course, and I appologize if the query here is unwelcome. If it is, please let me know and I won't do it again. I simply wanted to remind you about the question, in case you just didn't want to answer there. Cheers.:) sinneed (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was, and still is....that if we are going to delete articles from the .gov websites that I posted...which has been done again, even though they are clearly related to FFS based on content...then the opinion article which also does not mention FFS should also be removed. Fair is fair. If one is not "directly related" then either is the other. If we keep AISH article, then the FTC and GAO information should also be included.DJJONE5NY (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

I've added them again....either they all stay, or they all go. Positive, negative whatever. They still have reason to be included.DJJONE5NY (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

While your edit was strictly speaking against consensus, I've decided to concede the point and remove the AISH link. FWIW, I see your point. There were too many EL's anyway. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]