Talk:Going Upriver

Reverts
User RickK:

I have reviewed the reverts you have made. I will assume that you are acting in good faith, and that your actions are not intentionally malicious. Before bringing others in to review and correct your actions, I'd like to give you the opportunity to explain them. Of particular concern are:
 * your repetitious reverts without leaving an explanatory Edit Summary
 * continuous reverts while ignoring multiple requests to explain your actions on the Discussion page
 * reverting the complete article while leaving this inaccurate edit summary: "delete quote form another website which is longer than the original Wikipedia text"
 * after reviewing the Block log, you appear to be blocking anyone that makes an edit to that article
 * you have blocked users for alleged copyright violations while never explaining the violation, nor citing the reason in the Edit Summary
 * during your wholesale and unexplained reverts, you have deleted content that is original and factual, also with no explanation

We would like to keep Wikipedia a productive environment. As such, actions such as yours will be brought into question. Please address the above issues at your earliest convenience. -Rob

My comments and reasoning were put on one of your multiple of anon IDs, which you chose to delete without comment and with a personal attack. RickK 08:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not deleted a thing. Can you please cite the user ID so I may review your comments?  Thank you.  -Rob
 * Additionally, I just noticed that you have cited "copyright violation" for the first time in the Edit Summary. I have reviewed the text you have deleted, and do not recognize the violation you claim.  Can you please be more specific?  I just reviewed your notation to that user, and all you say is that the quotation he used was larger than the rest of the Wiki article, and therefor a copyright violation.  There are 2 problems that I see with that.  One, that does not constitute a copyright violation, and two, the quoted section was not larger than the rest of the article.     Thank you.  -Rob
 * I'm still looking for the copyright violation. It appears to conform to Fair Use stipulations.  It is a brief quote, the source is cited, it does not detract from the profits of the copyright holder (indeed, it enhances the profits), the content is factual rather than fictitious or opinion.  Exactly where does the text in question violate a copyright law? -Rob

User RickK appears to be unwilling to discuss his penchant for unexplained reverting, nor does he address the six issues listed above. Perhaps he is applying his previously stated position, so eloquently stated on his personal page:
 * "I hereby declare that I will stop blocking anybody. Nobody gives a shit about what gets put on this fucking encyclopedia, nobody gives a shit about who does the fucking posting, nobody gives a shit about the fucking vandals that come around. Fine. Deal with it. I'm through." -RickK

The matter appears to be shelved for now. -Rob

Wikiprojects?
Does this article really belong in the Biography WikiProject? And if it does, does that mean that each and every film that is (even remotely) biographical in nature belong there, too? — AnnaKucsma  (Talk to me!) 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)