User talk:CleanHarry29201

Hello, CleanHarry29201, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Cheers, Petros471 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --TeaDrinker 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note
TeaDrinker, there is a dispute about whether the Global Warming page is POV or not. That is sufficient reason for a POV tag to be placed on the article. It is improper for a user to remove a POV tag so long as a dispute is ongoing, and at least two users (JQLibet and myself) dispute the neutrality of the Global Warming article. I appreciate your threats and attempt to silence my point of view, but 3RR is what it is, and I will abide by it. But reverting one edit is not a 3RR violation. In any event, the edit I reverted was a counterfactual and improper edit, and I will continue to remove counterfactual and improper edits up to the 3RR limit.CleanHarry29201 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not a threat at all, just a note about policy which I was not sure you had seen.  I did not want to see you blocked for a rule you knew nothing about.  You are correct, reverting once is no violation of the three revert rule.  The three revert rule says revert no more than 3 times in 24 hours, except in cases of vandalism.  I am aware of the discussion on the talk page of the article.  --TeaDrinker 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern. Do you agree that it is improper to remove a POV tag so long as the neutrality of an article remains in dispute? CleanHarry29201 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the tag should be placed, since the matter has been discussed extensively in the past, with a consensus it was not a violation of the neutral point of view policy.  It is also a featured article, meaning a previous version of it has passed muster before a host of editors who are not regular editors of the article.  There are many articles which have political sides, and some people claim violations of npov regularly.  The only solution is extensive discussion and working out a version which is consistent with the published literature (in this case, scientific literature primarily).  I think the case should be made on the talk page before the tag is placed, since there has been so much discussion on this in the past.  --TeaDrinker 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * TeaDrinker, perhaps the word consensus has been Orwellianly redefined on the Wikipedia, but there is no consensus that the Global Warming article is neutral. I don't believe it's neutral, nor does JQLibet at least.  So how is that a consensus?  Of course if EVERYONE agreed that the article was neutral, removal of the POV tag would be fine.  But not everyone agrees that the article is neutral.  So what should be done when some dispute the neutrality of an article, if one can't post a tag that the neutrality of an article is disputed? CleanHarry29201 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion of what consensus means at WP:CONS. In reality, you're correct that common practice is everyone does not have to agree.  As I am sure you can imagine, there are some pages which would never have the pov tag removed, because there is a constant stream of newcomers who believe the article is biased, but make the same points which have already been discussed.  A weaker form of the pov tag is --however if the pov has already been checked many times, adding pov or pov-check repeatedly seems odd.  I think it is fairly reasonable to hold off on adding a pov tag to an article until the evidence behind the dispute can be examined.  --TeaDrinker 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with the circumstances behind any of the messages on my talk page. --Michael Johnson 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its pretty clear that this user is a sock of someone more experienced. Nonetheless a 3RR warning makes sense William M. Connolley 09:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never violated 3RR, nor do I plan to. But the vandalism to my POV tag on Global Warming will be reverted, because 3RR does not apply to vandalism. In any event, I do not plan to make the change within 24 hours of my last edit, to remove any possibility of violated 3RR.  But, as I said, removal of a POV tag when there is a neutrality dispute ongoing is vandalism.  CleanHarry29201 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the editor of quite a few controversial articles myself, One could also say that adding a POV tag in the middle of a dispute over what are certainly larger issues constitutes bad faith editing or POV-pushing of your own, especially when you vehemently choose to continue your actions in spite of what other people have said. MSJapan 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * MSJapan, then perhaps I don't understand what the purpose of a POV tag is. I think a POV tag is what it says it is: an indicator that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the material within a page.  If a POV tag is an indicator that there is an ongoing neutrality dispute, then why is it wrong to put a POV tag on a page that has an ongoing neutrality dispute?  Sorry, if a POV tag is what it says it is, then my placement of it on Global Warming was perfectly proper, and its removal was vandalism.  And I am not the only editor who believes Global Warming is POV; JQLibet, at least, agrees with me.  So until someone explains to me why it's wrong to add a tag denoting a dispute when there is an ongoing dispute, I will continue to revert the vandalism and return the POV tag to the page. CleanHarry29201 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do keep in mind that many of the editors who removed the pov tag are experienced editors, one is an administrator. While this is not really a factor in determining what is and is not vandalism, it should give you pause.  Remember 3RR exempts only to simple and obvious vandalism.  --TeaDrinker 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So your position is that it's appropriate to remove a tag indicating a neutrality dispute when there is an ongoing neutrality dispute? That doesn't make any sense.  There are two arguments going on: first, whether the information on Global Warming is POV.  Second, whether the fact that this first argument is happening means it's ok to put a tag on the page indicating a dispute about POV language.  People are talking past each other, thinking arguments in the first argument apply to the second.  They don't.  The only thing that has to happen for a POV tag to be properly appended to a page is an in-progress neutrality dispute.  That's happening here, and the removal of the tag under these circumstances is simple vandalism. CleanHarry29201 01:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that removing the tag is vandalism, then the solution is simple: to report it as such. Of course you won't, because you're fully aware that removing it *isn't* vandalism, so how about stopping the rants? William M. Connolley 10:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe in reporting people until they have a reasonable chance to stop doing what it is they're doing after fair notice. But if you're issuing an invitation for me to report you, consider it done. CleanHarry29201 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your POV tag
For those of us who don't have the time to read through all of the POV war going on here, perhaps it would be constructive if you could single out here a particular part of the Global warming article that you feel contains the worst instance of POV. If you simply label the whole of such a long article as POV there is no way for the other editors to help you rectify the problem. We are all here to help, regards sbandrews 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would also be constructive if the persons on the other side of the "edit war" did not think that no dispute exists if they deny the existence of it. I have pointed out a few problems with the article on the talk page, and other editors would be in a position to fix these problems if the "other side" would stop removing the valid POV tag.  I, however, appreciate your constructive approach to the problem.  But I still fail to understand why a tag indicating a POV dispute is inappropriate when there is an ongoing POV dispute, and I'd like for someone to explain that to me. CleanHarry29201 18:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Think how you expect people to respond to your tag. Are you making it easy for people to help you solve the POV issue. We are all working hard on our own pet projects, and do not have time, unfortunatly, to review the whole of the Global Warming article for POV. I have no doubt the severe and annoying POV exist in the article, since anyone, whatever their belief is allowed to edit it. Help us to help you by tagging the worst offending area, rather than the whole article, which often just leads to a flame war. Further, when contributing to the talk page, make the title of your discussion as specific as possible, not just 'POV debate', kind regards sbandrews 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have pointed to specific areas in the Global Warming article that contain blatant POV language on the Global Warming talk page. I appreciate your attempts to settle the issue, but the problem remains.  When someone disputes neutrality, why do some editors think it's improper to put a tag on the page noting that neutrality is being disputed?  It makes no sense, and is contrary to the NPOV policy.  CleanHarry29201 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that it is true that the neutrality of the page is in question. I believe that it is true that a flame war about the neutrality of the page is in process. I accept that it is likely that there are POV problems with the page, which is why I asked you to be more specific here as to what they were so that I could help. I think my suggestions about limiting the scope of your POV tagging should help you to move forward in your aim to make the article more balanced. There are many people with the same opinion as you, what makes a Wikipedia editor special is their ability to work carefully and acuratly to make this article on global warming the best and fairest on the internet. Good luck in your editing. sbandrews 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this: "I formally declare that I dispute the neutrality of the Global Warming page. JQLibet also formally disputes it.  Sbandrews has said that it is likely there are POV problems with the page. Sbandrews has also said that many people agree with me on this question."  How does me saying this not rise to the level of "the neutrality of the page 'being' in question"?  I appreciate your kind responses, but you and several other Wikipedians have adopted a genuinely Orwellian view of what the word "dispute" means.  If one group of people is engaged in an argument with another group of people about a topic, it seems to me that there is a "dispute" over that topic.  I apologize for the pedantry, but I cannot fathom how anyone could misunderstand or even disagree with my point.


 * I gather that what you're suggesting is to forget about the POV tag and just edit away, or raise specific concerns about parts that need to be edited as a political matter. I appreciate this, but I simply will not be browbeaten into admitting there is no dispute when there is.  I don't know if you're a Star Trek fan, but there are four lights dude. CleanHarry29201 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "Vandalism"
According to wp:vand, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." According to that official statement, neither adding nor removing the POV tag on the Global Warming article was vandalism. You weren't vandalising the article by adding the POV tag, because you strongly believed that you were improving the encyclopedia by doing so. Similarly, the people who removed your POV tag also weren't vandalising the article, because they strongly believed that they were improving the encyclopedia by removing the tag. There's no vandalism going on by either side; there's just a difference of opinion as to how best to improve the encyclopedia. A change is only vandalism if it was the contributor's goal to harm the encyclopia. MrRedact 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't read people's minds, but the evidence before me suggests that the removal of my POV tags was intended to harm the encyclopedia. A POV tag is proper when there is an ongoing dispute.  There is an ongoing dispute.  Ergo, the POV tag is proper.  The only motivation for removing a tag in that circumstance is to keep readers from being aware of a POV dispute.  That harms the encyclopedia and is therefore vandalism.  CleanHarry29201 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All cases of harming the encyclopedia are not vandalism. Even if pretty much everyone agreed that removing the tag was harming the encyclopedia, that alone wouldn't make it vandalism.  For removing the tag to be vandalism, the person who removes the tag must themself believe that they are harming the encyclopedia by removing the tag.  Otherwise, their harming of the encyclopedia is just a misguided or ill-considered attempt to improve the encyclopedia, which the official guideline explicitly says is not vandalism.


 * That leaves the question of whether the people who are removing the tag themselves believe that they are harming the encyclopedia by removing the tag. I can't read people's minds either, but the Wikipedia guidelines provide guidance as to how to deal with our inability to read people's minds in this situation.  According to the Assume Good Faith guideline, "...we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it", and "when you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project".  So we are required to assume by default that someone believes (perhaps incorrectly) that they are improving the encyclopedia, unless it's completely implausible that they might hold that belief.  When some kid replaces a whole well-written article with "Jimmy Johnson is a dumbass", it's very difficult to conceive that the kid might think that he's making an improvement to the article, so we are forced to consider the edit to be vandalism.  But if it's at all possible to conceive that there's any chance at all that a person who removes an NPOV tag might actually believe that the NPOV tag would give a reader an incorrect impression that the article is biased, then the Assume Good Faith guideline forces us to assume that the person removing the tag believes that they are improving the encyclopedia, and hence, removing the tag doesn't count as vandalism.  MrRedact 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A person who intentionally removes a POV tag when there is a POV dispute intends to harm the encyclopedia by suppressing the information the POV tag conveys: the fact that there is a POV dispute ongoing. The "assume good faith" guideline establishes a mere rebuttable presumption in favor of good faith.  I always assume good faith, until evidence convinces me otherwise.  The evidence in this case has convinced me that those who continue to remove the POV tag on Global Warming are operating in bad faith.  Again, "assume good faith" is not an irrebuttable presumption, it is a rebuttable presumption, and I believe it to have been rebutted in the case of the Global Warming POV tag controversy. CleanHarry29201 03:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Katon Dawson
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Katon Dawson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Katon Dawson is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Katon Dawson, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)