User talk:HResearcher/Vivaldi

'''This is an archive of discussions/warnings/etc with User:Vivaldi. DO NOT EDIT whatsoever. If you have something to say in response to anything here, you can to do it on User talk:HResearcher.'''

3 Revert Violation Warning
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts to the Barbara Schwarz article or you may be blocked from further editing.

You have already reverted this article 4 times in the past 24 hours. Your deletions to this article are vandalism and will be reported to administrators if they do not cease immediately. Vivaldi (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope! The Barbara Schwarz article is about a living person and the Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to the article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. --HResearcher 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The information you are deleting is not poorly sourced or unsourced. You are removing information that comes from cited popular press (Salt Lake Tribune) and various court documents as well as self-published information about the subject of the article, which are all acceptable as sources.  Considering that we dispute the validity of your claim that these are improperly sourced, your deletions and violations of 3RR are vandalism.  Please develop a consensus for your controversial edits before making them. Vivaldi (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I restored the content which is supposedly covered by the SLC Tribune, Tilman argued against me so much on this point that I restored even though it is poorly sourced. --HResearcher 19:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you also removed other properly sourced text. And furthermore, the appropriate avenue that you should take before you make controversial deletions is to discuss them on the talk pages.  Many people have worked on this article to make sure that everything in it is attributed to sources that are reputable and reliable.     In the future I would suggest that you attempt discussion aimed at garnering a consensus for your viewpoints before you delete material.  Vivaldi (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi, read Wales statement below. His opinion has more weight than yours.  Removing uncited material does not need to be discussed.  Your article is poorly cited (I notice from the history that you and Tilman are the major contributors there).  The *some* people who have worked on the article cited their sources very poorly and mostly to questionable sources.  I haven't worked on as many articles as many people in Wikipedia, but in the articles that I have worked on I cited after every single statement where possible.  Yet the article you write makes paragraphs of claims with only a reference section at the bottom of the page.  I suggest you learn to use the ref tags. --HResearcher 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wales's statement. However, the problem is that you have removed text that is properly sourced to verifiable sources that meet the requirements for inclusion.  So now there is a dispute that must be worked on a discussion page and a consensus developed for how we should approach things.  If there are any specific claims in the article that you dispute the validity of, then go ahead and point them out on the talk page and you will be provided with the proper citations that justify the claims.  Are there any claims in the article that you think are wrong?  Do you think Barbara Schwarz is the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and that she lived in an undersea base in the Great Salt Lake called Chattanooga?  Just curious... Vivaldi (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  I suggest you learn to use the ref tags. I suggest that you reread the article. References are supplied throughout.  Wikipedia does not require that every single statement and word have a reference tag behind them.  Entire paragraphs or entire articles can be properly sourced to one or multiple references.  I am well aware of how to use the ref tags and I suspect that if an accounting of 'ref tags' was made that I have added hundreds more than you.  I very much want the information in Wikipedia to be properly sourced, and like you proclaim to be, I am concerned about how Wikipedia treats living people.  If you check out the Fred Phelps article talk page you can see how I argued that much of that article should be culled because it is almost entirely based on an unverifiable unpublished work.  The fact is, you just made a mistake about this article.  You deleted material that is verifiable. Vivaldi (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect block
This blocked user ( [ block log] | [ unblock] | contribs ) has asked to be unblocked.

Note: no admin unblocked me even though my actions were supported by policy WP:BLP. --HResearcher 08:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request reason: "The Barbara Schwarz article is about a living person and the Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to the article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. --HResearcher 06:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)"

Blocked editor: Please paste the contents of the block infobox (screenshot) below to help administrators locate your block in the logs. Administrators should not unblock without attempting to discuss with the blocking administrator (see the blocking policy). If this request is declined, it should be replaced with:  . DO not remove this notice from my page, I want it kept for documentation purposes. I have removed the category from the subst'd template. --HResearcher 08:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: no admin unblocked me even though my actions were supported by policy WP:BLP. --HResearcher 08:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy): 3rr on Barbara Schwarz'''

WP:BLP states:

'''Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel.'''

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

'''"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." 1'''

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

'''"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." 2'''


 * Note: no admin unblocked me even though my actions were supported by policy WP:BLP You removed properly sourced material and you were blocked for violating the policy of Wikipedia that is meant to prevent people from engaging in revert wars. The information was continually readded and you were pointed to sources for each of the claims that were included in the article.  And still, you cannot justify any of the deletions you made.  Numerous editors can still point you to the sources.  Can you name a single claim that wasn't supported by a verifiable source?  Even one? Vivaldi (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
HResearcher, your edit here is viewed by me as a personal attack. Wikipedia has a policy against this. I would encourage you to read up on the policy at WP:NPA. You have a mistaken belief or assumption that I want the Barbara Schwarz page to exist in order to defame or cause harm to Ms. Schwarz. That is incorrect. I want the article to contain only verifiable information about things that are notable about her. Your accusation that I am "acting strangely" is uncalled for. I'm giving you this warning now in the hope that you will change your behaviour on Wikipedia and immediately cease from engaging in personal attacks. Vivaldi (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As for you claim that I "cherry pick" information to put in the Barbara Schwarz article, I'd like for you to retract that erroneous claim immediately. I haven't written any of the claims in the article, so it would be impossible for me to have done any cherry picking at all. You need to address your comments to the appropriate editors. Vivaldi (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Removing warnings from your user page
Please do not remove warnings from this talk page. Doing so in the future will be considered vandalism. Vivaldi (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, you've got to be kidding me. :D I suppose you would call my next action "vandalism". --HResearcher 07:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Temporary archive especially for Vivaldi. --HResearcher 07:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not kidding. Removing recent warnings on your talk page concerning your very recent violations of Wikipedia policy concerning personal attacks are vandalism.  Continued attempts to hide or coverup these talk page warnings will be construed as vandalism. Vivaldi (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Covering up your policy violations with an edit summary accusing me of wikistalking is innappropriate, and a violation of the policy at WP:CIVIL. I am not following you around Wikipedia at all.  I haven't even clicked on your contributions list a single time, however when you edit articles that I am actively editing and watching and make personal attacks against me, I will respond.  You need to read up some more about the guidelines at WP:STALK before you make these uncivil accusations. Vivaldi (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)