User talk:Injusticefixers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Third Eye Blind, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Woknam66 talk James Bond 02:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Third Eye Blind. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Woknam66 talk James Bond 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please advise as to how the addition of a track listing and album credits of the most successful album under the present heading "Success" constitutes "vandalism". I believe I am making a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. Why do you consider this addition vandalism?
 * The user who called it "vandalism" was slightly off base, it does seem like you were doing it in good faith. However, he was right in telling you that it was not appropriate for the article. It's not "encyclopedic", this is not the credits section for the album. Sergecross73   msg me   12:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"A Collection" Section
While it's acceptable to point out that he did not credit people properly, much of the rest of what you add with that is not acceptable. In general, you really need to stick to the reliable sources. Please read up on them. Concentrating so much on the social media comments by bitter past members violates a lot of neutral point of view and undue weight issues. Make a mention, but keep to the hard facts.


 * 1) You need reliable sources to show this was a "controversy". So far you've supposedly got one reviewer who seems to take notice and complain.
 * 2) Kevin Cadogan, through his MySpace page discussed the situation -- Not a reliable source.
 * 3) Tony F. and his facebook. Not only would quotes from his facebook not be a reliable source, but you didn't even link to a particular conversation, just to his general profile. Not a reliable source.
 * 4) You made some sort of comment like "Jenkin has yet to offer an apology". That, along with how you word a lot of the section, sounds pretty biased, taking a side, assuming he needs to apologize, etc.

(Side Note: I know Jenkins is awful, I'm not defending him. I just know this is not the way or place to be airing your grievences about him.) Sergecross73   msg me   03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd suggest you read up on vandalism. As you can see, it is defined as "Intentionally making abusive edits". As described above and in my edit summaries, my edits are in regards to specific policies, they are not abusive or in bad faith. You are wrong to call them "vandalism", as you did in one of your edit summaries. Sergecross73   msg me   15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You reveal YOUR bias against past members when you you refer to them as "bitter". You seem to not want this information out there. Maybe Jenkins is the one who is "bitter" for losing law suits and that is why he omits band members from history.
 * Again, my problem is that you're writing it like an editorial, not an encyclopedia, and not using wikipedia-standard reliable sources. You can't use Tony's profile link as a source to all these things he's said, or say things like "Well it's from Kevin's myspace". The "sources" you keep using do not show any proof of the things you're writing. Perhaps if you'd read up on some well written wikipedia articles, and read up on some policies, you'd see what's wrong with what you're doing. Sergecross73   msg me   17:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read them. thank you. However, my new posting has wikipedia-standard reliable sources.
 * Yes, and please take the time to look at what you're doing. I'm not removing your info, I'm just putting it into the "OOTV + A Collection", because neither section is very long, they may as well be put together. The version you keep trying to change it to has 2 paragraphs that are virtually the same. Look at what you keep on trying to change it to here. Those paragraphs are clearly duplicates. So please stop re-adding it. Look hard at how I have it set up now. All your info is there. Sergecross73   msg me   18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see now that you have combined them. My apologies. But, why are you combining the albums under a single heading?
 * It's commonly done when there are 2 short sections. Sergecross73   msg me   18:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Jenkins
1) Sourced or not, those quotes are out of context. I don't really think they belong at all, but if they did, you need to set them up so they're in the right context. Yet again, you're crossing with WP:NPOV problems. 2) Again, you are wrong to call every edit that removes your information as vandalism. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them bad faith or abusive edits. Sergecross73  msg me   19:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits on Stephan Jenkins
Hi, please note that I have removed your addition to Stephan Jenkins stating that he stole from people. Whether it's true or not, and sourced or not, it's undue weight to discuss it, especially in such stark terms, in the article in question. Even sourced information can violate our biographies of living people policy, if misused or out of place, and the information you're adding falls under that umbrella. Please don't re-add it a third time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

" it's undue weight to discuss it" Please explain why you believe a person's character is not up for discussion on Wikipedia?


 * Because we're not here to discuss their character, and certainly not to judge their character. We're here to discuss the encyclopedic, neutral facts of his life, not list things that might be pleasant or unpleasant about him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And as I was saying, you're not keeping a neutral point of view. Reading over your edits, just about every one is showing Jenkins in a negative light, and Kevin Cadogan in a positive light. (For those not up on Third Eye Blind history, they had a pretty big falling out. Fans frequently take sides.) Mentioning the facts is fine, but writing an editorial, or adding irrelevant/out of context quotes is not. Sergecross73   msg me   19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are very passionate about showing Jenkins in the best light. But like you said we are not here to judge, nor to act as PR people. Quoting Jenkins on drug use and sex after a sentence about his drinking is not out of context. These are words out of his own mouth to major newspapers! Perhaps a mother of a fifteen year old would like to know that Jenkins thinks its funny to talks about licking cocaine off of fifteen year old girls thighs. True or not. These are words out of his mouth and these are at best thoughts that he finds amusing. Qouting Jenkins about his admission on how he was able to survive by stealing money after a sentence which describes him living off top ramen is perfectly in context. You repeatedly removed his quote about stealing the money to buy food but left in the part about the food. You are not being neutral and clearly have an agenda which supports your view of Jenkins. Information I found I believe serves a public good to those who want to learn more about how he THINKS and what kind of person he is. That is the point of an encyclopedia. Readers can judge for themselves, unless of course they are not giving the information because it is denied them. Kevin Cadogan has made no such quotes to the press. If he has then they should be included. Like I said, I am only putting out there what Jenkins has said himself. This is what Jenkins wanted out there! Its as if you are protecting Jenkins from himself. Wikipedia is supposed to be an information site not a place to set up fan pages. You have stated a bias against past members including Cadogan by calling them "bitter". I see no evidence of that. I have not violated any of the codes which you cite. If you think that what Jenkins says to newspapers about his own life is not "neutral" then you must take it up with him. You are attempting to censor information that you don't like, and that is just uncool Sergecross.


 * I understand that you are very passionate about showing Jenkins in the best light. -- Not true at all. If I wanted to show him in the best light, I'd ramp up his article with all the awards he's won, actresses he's dated, etc. But I haven't done that. Take note, I haven't added any information to the article if my memory serves me right, I've just removed your ridiculous quotes. I mean, come on, in his short article, do you really think those quotes sum up this man's life? Really??


 * Information I found I believe serves a public good to those who want to learn more about how he THINKS and what kind of person he is. That is the point of an encyclopedia. Readers can judge for themselves, unless of course they are not giving the information because it is denied them. That is absolutely NOT the "point of wikipedia". There's no reason to address this point any further, as it just goes to show how unfamiliar you really are with wikipedia and it's policies.


 *  You have stated a bias against past members including Cadogan by calling them "bitter". - I said this on your discussion page, at no point have I put this in any articles. Furthermore, I was saying it as a criticism of your wording of your writing, and your failure to comply to WP:NPOV.  Sergecross73   msg me   18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your editing
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, so we have rules about editing on some topics.


 * 1) If you edit a page and find other editors do not agree with you, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page and not just repeat adding it back and ignoring our policies. We call this "edit warring". Even if you are sure you are right, your edits to Stephan Jenkins would count as edit warring. You added posts about stealing and/or sexual activities at 22:53 (25 Sept) 05:30 (26 Sept) 18:45 19:05 and 19:10. If you add it again this way you are almost sure to be blocked from editing to prevent such activity. Please discuss instead and read how we resolve disputes on Wikipedia.
 * 2) We have policies on biographical articles, and on what material is appropriate or inappropriate. These include agreement that some things which were made a "Big deal" in the media do not have to be covered here, or are not covered the same way.  When there is doubt among editors about how these apply, then it is resolved by discussion.

FT2 (Talk 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)