User talk:Jæs/Archives/2010/December

Maclean's

Why are you preventing me from editing this? I am "neutral" and want to contribute to knowledge on this subject matter. Who are you? You work for Maclean's magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidman Wheeler (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with Maclean's, except for cancelling my subscription a few years ago. I have no reason to question your neutrality, but your edits to the article have significant point-of-view issues that make them inappropriate for an encyclopædia. Particularly, Wikipedia has policies relating to the balance of an article and the types of sources that are acceptable. The content you are adding fails, in many ways, on both of those counts. There is also a policy, which I mentioned on your talk page, that requires you to discuss your changes after other editors request that you do so or revert your content. I don't believe it's your intention, but you have repeatedly reverted myself and other editors, and this is not acceptable. Please see Talk:Maclean's/Archives/2012#Controversy, so that we can discuss these issues further there. You might also want to review WP:5P, an article on the core principles of Wikipedia. jæs (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You're all right in saying that I don't much about how these discussions and "talk" work. You mention that I have made almost 70 revisions. The reason is that I am not familiar with the technical aspect of how to edit on Wikipedia, so I am experimenting. How else will I learn how to edit on Wikipedia? Yesterday was indeed the first time I started editing an article with Wikipedia. I saved frequently so that I could see what the result was and I am something of a perfectionist. I didn't want anything out of place.

Someone here mentioned that I have "promise". I definitely believe that I do. I am familiar with a variety of subjects, some in depth and some may be obscure to the general public. As you can see from my edits, I care a lot about accuracy and I clearly cite my sources.

Prior to this experience, I came to Wikipedia frequently, trusting it to be information from a reliable, dedicated public -- people who are knowledgeable and only what to share their expertise. I certainly understand that edits need to be checked by your staff. But I suddenly realize that Wikipedia, in removing much of what I added to the Maclean's article, is protecting its reputation. For example, I was prevented from stating that there was "public outcry" to its style of journalism and how it has become offensive to Quebeckers, among other groups. But interestingly I remember seeing, so I went back to check your entry on Jan Wong, says that there was severe public outcry against her writing. Numerous quotes from her critics were attached on her main page. I don't know her personally but it appears it's a personal attach against an accomplished journalist. But the Maclean's article shows a long "History" section that comes from one source -- that source is Maclean's itself. Other than coming from one source, it is obviously much too long in my opinion. Even so, I have not attempted to remove anything that was already there.

What is the point if Wikipedia, which is supposed to be written by the people, is preventing people from being objective in displaying information about it from other sources? If I wanted to know how Maclean's sees itself, I don't need Wikipedia.

I used to have tremendous respect for Wikipedia. Yeah, yeah, you might say everyone says that. Trust me, I don't lie about this. Today I'm very disappointed. Not only might I stop contributing, I might also stop reading altogether. Now I understand why so many people are critical of Wikipedia. In fact you are a small group of biased elites. I say elites because you have the power to control information and perhaps those people at Maclean's are your friends. I'm so seriously disappointed. We have enough newspapers and encyclopedias that present a narrow perspective. Why do we need to visit your site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidman Wheeler (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you really don't have a bias, then let me say to you that you shouldn't be afraid of Maclean's. They don't like Wikipedia very much anyway. They know that Wikipedia is written by the public. That' what I like about Wikipedia. The whole point, I think, is that other people should be able to say factual what Maclean's is.

I also noticed that other people controlling the Maclean's article has prevented people from adding that Maclean's has become a publication of the far right. It's true. And it's supported by facts. But you say it's not objective. So what is objective? An un-objective magazine is objective in your "objective" opinion?

There must be a reason that so many people want it to be known that the magazine is what it is. My purpose is not single-minded or whatever you say it is. We want to contribute to knowledge and we want to present the facts citing reliable sources. What else could be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidman Wheeler (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really think you guys are nuts.

Your page on Jan Wong (as previously mentioned) contains the following:

She implied a relation between the fact that the three were not old-stock Québécois and the murders they committed, since they were, according to Wong, alienated in a Quebec society concerned with "racial purity". The relation was unclear to people, and this argument was denounced in Quebec as theatrical and defamatory "Quebec bashing".

But your Maclean's article doesn't say a single word about Maclean's Quebec bashing. What the...? I begin to wonder: do you know the subject matter at all???

I don't mean any disrespect but I really have lost respect for Wikipedia. I bet you that's why people just give up. Maybe it's good for you. You can silence the people whose facts you don't like. We'll just all go to CNN, CBC and BBC for our information then. We don't need Wikipedia. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You must be an editor at Maclean's. It doesn't matter if I am blocked. Wikipedia and the public loses. There was so much controversy about the "Quebec most corrupt province" issue. You are NOT objective. If you ARE, there would be a section on this very subject on the Maclean's entry. But that's fine. I'm not going to bother with it. Wikipedia loses. You win. And I save a lot of time. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The only edits I have made to the Maclean's article have been to try to clean up your content so that it fits within Wikipedia guidelines, instead of being removed wholesale (which, in the state it was in, it very well could have been). If there's something else you'd like included regarding a Maclean's bias against Québec, propose it at Talk:Maclean's. If you can provide links to reliable sources indicating it is a notable concern, I'm sure it will be included. But it's time for you to drop the ongoing, bad faith accusations that I'm somehow an editor of Maclean's simply for asking you to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. jæs (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

AN3 report

Hello - I've responded to your AN3 report by giving the user a final warning about inserting commentary and analysis into articles. It's not a 3RR violation technically, but he's stretched the limits of editing enough. If he continues past my warning, let me know or report him again at AN3, because it will be a 3RR violation if he does it one more time. Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 01:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, Katie. It looks like they're getting a little more familiar with how talk pages work, so hopefully we'll be able to figure out how to go from here. jæs (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know he didn't get the message. He now has a brief hiatus to enjoy Christmas with his family. If he resumes after he comes back, let me know, because it's looking like he's a disruption-only account. Merry Christmas! :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for dealing with this. And speaking of Christmas, Happy Holidays! jæs (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Started back up

He’s at it again. This edit re-inserts mention of Jean Charest who is not even mentioned in the CBC source. With this edit, I reverted it again. Now, in his edit summary, he admits that it is the Globe & Mail source that relates to Charest. Problem is, that source is not a secondary source interpreting or discussing Charest’s letter; it is merely a reproduction of the letter, a raw document. Thus, it is a primary source that we cannot use (see WP:PRIMARY). Also, any attempt to interpret it would be either original research or, at best, synthesis. So, with this edit, I removed the G&M citation. If he wants to make reference to Charest, he needs to find a secondary sourced that discusses/analyzes it.

Finally, with this edit, he claimed to be correcting a quote from the G&M regarding Vivienne Poy, only he did not quote the article correctly. (Working too fast perhaps?). So, with this edit, I correctly input the quotation.

Well, that’s the update for now. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE1:  With this edit, he reverted — without explanation — my removal of the G&M source, despite my clear, explanatory edit summary. With this edit, I reverted his revert of me with the following edit summary:

Undid edit by Kidman Wheeler (talk). Please. Stop this. You are going into another edit war. Read earlier edit summary. Primary sources (i.e., raw documents) cannot be used.

I want to avoid having a 3RR charge leveled at me, so I can do no more tonight. I’ll give him credit, though, he’s consistent: He consistently goes back to his single purpose of promoting his agenda of slamming Maclean’s. Thanks!

— SpikeToronto 06:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE2:  I give up! (See here and here.) I do not know how to get him to bring his editing in line with policy. He won’t engage on the article’s talk page. When he has engaged on this talk page and/or on his own, he seems to speak, but not listen. Case in point: When he says “no apparent reason” he is really saying “I didn’t hear that.” Perhaps you’ll have better luck. — SpikeToronto 06:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Even before I finished typing the second update, he had already put it back. It’s obvious he is not going to read any wikipolicy or wikiguideline. Ever. It is pointless to mention them in edit summaries since he will not read them. He cannot use the primary material because he is not also providing a reliable secondary source that interprets that material. There is no mention of Charest in the secondary source provided. — SpikeToronto 06:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no use in trying to deal with them: they have a clear agenda and aren't interested in our policies or sourcing requirements. I've brought the issue back up at wp:an/ew, since I believe User:KrakatoaKatie may be away for the holidays. Hopefully this can be dealt with once and for all, since it looks like User:Kidman Wheeler isn't going to willingly move from disruptive to collaborative. jæs (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

While you were filing a report at AN3, I decided to once more try to engage him. So, I left him a (lengthy) note on his talk page at User talk:Kidman Wheeler#Charest’s letter trying to explain things to him. However, thanks to your 3RR report, he has been blocked for 72 hours by Magog the Ogre and the article has been semi-protected by Courcelles. If you think that there is anything to add to my comments on his talk page, please feel free to do so. I should avoid Maclean’s now lest I get a 3RR warning, if not an outright block (something I have never had and hope to never receive, badge of shame that it is). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. What would it take for this editor to be blocked indefinitely as a disruptive editor? It seems to fit WP:DE, especially when you raise that with a WP:SPA. a WP:agenda account, a WP:DEPE, and a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What do you think? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My hope is that, following their current block, they'll consider discussing their concerns on the article talk page instead of constant reversion. You may want to copy your discussion of the Charest issue to the article talk page, as well, in case there are any other editors that may be interested. We'll see how things go over the next couple of days. jæs (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done  As suggested, I have posted the Charest comment to the article talkpage. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  P.S. You don’t think I’ve violated the three-revert rule with this edit do you? Thanks! — SpikeToronto

I think I'd agree that some of User:Kidman Wheeler's edits were purely disruptive, so it's not as clear cut when reverting those edits. Even though the content wasn't properly sourced, there's no deadline, so in the future you can always take a step back and let someone else figure out what's going on, if need be (excepting biographies, of course). It might be best to give it a few days, though, and let's hope any remaining issues can be worked out on the article's talk page. jæs (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I’m more or less done. I just wanted to make sure that mention of the Québec Premier was removed since, without a verifiable reference/citation discussing his ire, it’s original research. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. — SpikeToronto 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting here sooner, but it looks like the problem is solved for the next couple of days, anyway. Semi-protect probably won't stop him because I think he's already auto-confirmed due to # of edits. If he resumes right after the block expires and you can't find one of us (me, Courcelles, or Magog), take it to WP:ANI. I'm trying to AGF but I think he's a SPA and won't be dissuaded except by sanctions. Keep up the good work, guys! :-) KrakatoaKatie 05:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Katie! Also, I think the reason the semi-protect was put on the article was to prevent the SPA from block evading by switching to either IP-only edits, or a new account. I do hope, however, that we can avoid the often three-ring circus that is ANI! :) In any event, thanks for checking back in. — SpikeToronto 07:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)