Talk:Vitaly Borker

3rr? will we go there?
I can understand, I think, that this edit may seem justified to you since, recent reportage notwithstanding, Borker is not currently in prison, along with all the other people you made this edit on. But still ...

Maybe the solution is to create something like Category:Former prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government as a subcategory for Borker and those others similarly situated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I see you reverted an edit that you admit is a valid edit. That would be an admission of vandalism. So...why do you insist that this person remain in a category he does not belong? Could it be a personal vendetta? Also a violation of Wikipedia's editors rules. Now, you seem friend to be mudding the waters with first reverting an edit you state is valid and saying (in the explanation to provide proof) provide a citation he has been released when the article has two correct citations showing he has and then reverting your vandalism. one more time would be a 3rr violation.

Now, wikipedia recently revised the rules for the category deeming all my edits are correct. If they had created a category such as you suggest there would be one. Have a blessed day and maybe you should check with your pharmacist to get that refill you have neglected.2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

But still what? I need to check with you first? Please cite the Wikipedia reg for that!2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So: it is your claim that this category should only cover current prisoners? Because I don't see anything to justify that assertion. Please explain. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Its there. Look a little harder.2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry "friend". If it's there, you should be able to quote it right back here without telling us to look. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No need for ill will on either of your parts, Dan and 2600. 2600, I'm not seeing what you say you're seeing. Can you be more explicit? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So friend you are taking the position once in the category always in the category? Is the category named current and past. It would appear that would be overly harsh and punitive if that were the case. Especially in a BLP and also another nono for a BLP. So, what exactly are you claiming the category to be? 2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact Wikipedia inclusion is not meant to be permanent...Can we agree on this fact?2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I just assume that this category included both sub-categories, since there is nothing on the description of the cat or its parent categories to say otherwise. The experience, I am told, is life-changing. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that honesty. BLPs are not allowed to be negative in scope. So, going on that and once included in a category it isnt permanent. In America when you have completed your sentence you are no longer a prisoner or detainee...then how can you justify to be included in it?2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think of cats like these as summarizing life experiences. I'm not working for Revenue now, but a "tax agency worker" category for me would, I think, be just. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * wikipedia recently revised the rules for the category deeming all my edits are correct OK, then there should be a link you can give us to confirm this. inclusion is not meant to be permanent OK, link please? Your claim that this category only applies to current prisoners and detainees would mean many, many articles would have to be changed such as Charles Kushner, Alger Hiss, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind citing that policy where they changed it? The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#Why_might_a_category_list_not_be_up_to_date?

Why might a category list not be up to date? Sometimes, pages are not placed in categories manually by Wikipedia editors, but by means of templates, which can be used to place identical information (including category membership information) on many different pages at once. When the information on such a template is edited, the pages containing that template are updated, but not necessarily updated immediately. This means that pages might not always appear in the most current categories. However, this problem usually affects project maintenance categories rather than the categories used for browsing.

Various other delays sometimes mean that lists of category members or subcategories, or the page counts given, are not completely up to date (see Phabricator tickets T18036, T132467, and T157670 for technical details). So if you are editing Wikipedia and find that your page hasn't yet shown up in a category or been removed from an old category, don't panic! The problem may resolve itself within minutes, but sometimes it may take longer, in some cases days, even months. (It may help if you make a null edit to the page.)

Now, please explain the BLP policy allowance for being punitive and inclusion in a category in which he once belonged and no longer does. And do take into account the following.

People who are relatively unknown "WP:NPF" redirects here. For information regarding newly created pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual Shortcuts WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE WP:NPF Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

If we are to believe you and include every single person who ever was a p&d of the US and has a BLP on Wikipedia thousands would be needed to be added and you can start with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Ted Bundy, Samuel Mudd and countless others. You hopefully will act in good faith and post your reply here citing the policy henceforth where the Wikipedia category is implied that it is past and present and not just present as would reasonably be assumed. Once you convince me of that, be sure to get to work with adding all the BLP subjects I named and the hundreds not stated.

To be honest, this two bit con artist really doesn't matter (to me) and I am not sure why he matters to you in this conflict. I say be constructive and swell the category up to 2500 subjects and 80 pages, but cite the policy first and then revert all the other edits if you have the confidence to do so. Have a great night and I will be monitoring your decision King and your reply/actions. have a blessed day.2600:1700:7610:41E0:3969:EF8D:9281:6793 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as one note: none of the people in your list a graf above are under BLP as they have all been dead for quite some time. All of them are also beyond any time limit where BLP still applies. You have confused "BLP" with "all biographies". I would also dispute that Borker comes under NPF ... The New York Times has written about him more than once, he has been the subject of a cable news series on American criminals, and he has done two separate sentences in federal prison and may well soon be returned there for parole violation. What I put to you is, can you find any other instance where, corresponding to a category one would not want to be in, we also have a "former" category? I'll grant that we have to cover people who aren't prisoners anymore because they're not alive anymore, but that category by definition excepts itself from BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Boring really...do whatever you want. Facts are confusing to you and English is not your first language. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:3906:991:26D:D11D (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to doubt your good faith in having this argument (And really, English isn't your first language, Mr. Borker). Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you mind citing that policy where they changed it? The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#Why_might_a_category_list_not_be_up_to_date? The Categorization FAQ you linked to doesn't support your argumentation that an applicable editorial policy has been changed, or articles about former prisoners cannot have this particular category applied to them. You may feel such a category is punitive and undeserved, however your personal interpretation doesn't carry weight here. Facts are confusing to you and English is not your first language. Please see WP:NPA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Laughable really. You win. So why not revert the 70 other edits done yesterday as well. Could it be an administrator agrees with my application of the rules and cleared the contributions to stop further vandalism being done by Daniel and his sock puppets? The strange thing is no report was done reportingme. Daniel, everyone can see you do like to complete them often. Why not here and do tell us why is Borker the only one reverted? Crystal clear to me what is going on. LOL.

Here is an interesting tidbit friend, Wikipedia defines a prisoner as follows: A prisoner (also known as an inmate or detainee) is a person who is deprived of liberty against their will. This can be by confinement, captivity, or forcible restraint. The term applies particularly to serving a prison sentence in a prison.[1] (Strange they use the term in the present tense and obviously didn't get your dictate) Something else there sport, it also defines detainee also in the present tense as follows: Detainee is a term used by certain governments and their armed forces to refer to individuals held in custody, such as those it does not classify and treat as either prisoners of war or suspects in criminal cases. It is used to refer to "any person captured or otherwise detained by an armed force."[2] More generally, it means "someone held in custody."[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_(imprisonment)         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner

Not bad for someone whose first language is not English huh?

Seems strange that an unimportant ip address should give someone as important and versed in English (as you) a lesson in verb tenses and Wikipedia definitions huh? 2600:1700:7610:41E0:3906:991:26D:D11D (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, Виша, I am actually open to your argument; I might even take your side more openly if you focused your considerable energies on making a stronger case for it rather than looking for opportunities to make disparaging remarks about the rest of us here. I asked you, not rhetorically but because I thought you might actually respond constructively, if there are any other comparable instances where we've created "former" categories for people (as opposed to buildings or communities) where the parent category carries some sort of ignominy or social stigma. And you haven't yet. I ask not because I am trying to show you up but because it would be easier to persuade other editors and get consensus with an additional example. I do think you may have a point that it's not really fair to people who have at some point in the past served time but are presently free to still categorize them as "prisoners and detainees". In any event I think this discussion has outgrown this talk page; it would be better off being removed to Category talk:Prisoners and detainees since it would affect all subcategories, not just "... of the United States federal government". Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)