User talk:Axiomamnesia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Copyright
Note that we also do not link to websites with copyright materials. Also see WP:COI. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The site which was linked to is a member of the media, which is how the files were obtained directly from the Florida State Attorney's Office. On a page discussing the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it would seem prudent to included the witness interviews in their entirety. The mainstream media is releasing only clips of the witness testimony, and this does not allow people to hear what the witnesses said in their entirety--the actual source of these clips being played in the media. There is no copyright on the witness audio recordings, because they are public information. Axiomamnesia (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's just important that there's no copyvio on it. Looks like a good site. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is important that the public have access to the full interviews.Apostle12 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the resolution of the issue with the addition to the page that was requested is a bunch of nonsense. These so-called "editors" have determined that the source is "not reliable." We have a situation where NONE of the major media outlets are posting the full witness interviews. Yet, when the audio IS posted in its entirety--audio obtained DIRECTLY FROM THE FL STATE'S ATTY OFFICE--the dispute is that the source is unreliable. This is the problem with the media to begin with. The information is not being released to the public! And when it actually is released, it is disputed as unreliable. It is obvious that the preference is to link to mainstream sources that are using clips, often taken out of context or ignoring obviously important facts. Finally, the article in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin) is basically pro-Zimmerman. Anyone who reads it can see the obvious bias of the "editors," who seem dead set on making disparaging remarks about the victim. One need only look as far as the talk page for the article to see where their heads are on the subject. Multiple people have commented about how their changes were reverted. This article is extremely imbalanced in its coverage of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The racist overtones are appalling. It's like rewriting history--rewriting the official record... shameful! Why are they afraid to post the full audio of the witness statements? Why would these editors choose edited audio clips over allowing people to listen to the entire witness interviews? It makes absolutely no sense, but it is the reason why people remained ill-informed on most subjects--the facts aren't readily available for them to review for themselves. As such, they're left to whatever's presented to them through the lens and filter of the media, and Wikipedia and its point-promoted "editors" are complicit in this.Axiomamnesia (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked account
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual.

Additionally, it appears your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest, though you may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense that a user wouldn't be allowed to change their user name under circumstances like these. "Oh just go and sign up for a new account." No doubt that the user name issue came up upon the review of an edit under the unofficial "let's see how we can blacklist this person" policy. Foolishness...Axiomamnesia (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's pretty routine actually. Signing up for a new account is changing your name. You can even add a link to your old account to show you made those edits. What can't be done for technical reasons is change the name on an existing account. If that were possible I would have done that long ago. For the same reasons we can't delete accounts. Just set up a new account, it's really nothing major at all. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems silly that such a big site hasn't figured out how to implement such a change. The consequence is an unnecessary number of user names/multiple accounts.  Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know your thoughts on my comments in the copyright section above.  That's the major issue here IMO.Axiomamnesia (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think because of the size the databases are too complex. Certainly deleting an account would require deleting all their edits, which could cause all sorts of problems. Have you read ? I can't speak for all the editors at his article, but I can assure you that Moonriddengirl and I aren't Zimmerman supporters. The copyvio issue is a bit intricate but not key, the fact that these are being accessed from your site and not directly is the real problem. I am definitely not accusing you of changing anything, but we always want to source such stuff from an official site or one with a proven track record of accuracy, and virtually never from a personal website. You've got a good site there, just not one we can use for this. Florida gun law is dreadful, glad I don't live there anymore. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you want to source as much as possible, but I think that you are ignoring the obvious here. This is ACTUAL AUDIO of people making statements.  It's the information straight from the horse's mouth.  This is currently the ONLY place that has the full audio posted on the web accessible to the public.  As you know, the Florida State Attorney's Office requires a press account to access the files.  The funny thing is that the main page of the article links to YouTube videos as sources.  How do you verify that?  Somehow THAT information made it into the article, but nobody wants to add the actual audio of the witness statements.  This is not a situation where we have written that "So and so said this or that."  This is the opportunity for people to hear exactly what the witnesses said for themselves without the media filter.  As far as who is a supporter of whom, I really think that our personal views are irrelevant when attempting to put forth a balanced account of the events surrounding the shooting of Trayvon Martin.  The article has an apparent pro-Zimmerman slant though, and that's a disservice to all the people who come to the page wanting to know everything about the incident.  For the record, the site is not a "personal" website--it's alternative media.  What we're talking about here is the difference between mainstream and alternative media.  It's obvious that none of the mainstream media has released the full witness statements.  If so, you'd be linking to that.  The audio speaks for itself, and the refusal of people to use common sense in thinking through this is exactly why people don't have the information they need. Furthermore, it perpetuates the status quo.Axiomamnesia (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)