User talk:JonasBerger

Welcome
Welcome! 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:
 * 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 possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a  living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
 * 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 your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

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. 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! Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not mess up the archive~!
Just so you'd know, your recent edit/entry here at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58 is not really a wise move, cut it out~! Please note that the potential consequence of you messing with the archived page is usually a BLOCK if it is serious offence, but since you're new here, you have been warned~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles controlled by clans of obsessive editors?
With regards to this edit.

"As a long-time fan and reader of Wikipedia, I'm really disappointed by the ways the project can be jeopardized. Wikipedia is meant not only to be free but also to be open to the participation of anyone in the public. No single editor should be allowed more than a maximum percentage of edits in any sensitive article, or maybe in any article that is the "head" of its own category. It is not and should never be the private property of a group that "takes over" an article, to borrow the expression I read in the aforementioned post. Otherwise we open the door for ideological groups, political parties, religious-biased individuals, etc., to impose their views over an article, especially if they work together and dedicate many hours a day to such activity. They can simply do whatever it takes to sustain their POVs from an entrenched position, simulating a freedom of expression that in fact does not exist."

1) The project is not in jeopardy from editors who maintain articles, quite the opposite. Article with no open watching are subject to vandalism. If you are alleging that a group of users are acting to keep one opinion out then you have met the cabal, they control everything.

2) In theory there is a maximum amount of reverts to an article, that figure is 4, any higher and the editor can be blocked. A maximum number of good edits is a stupid idea, take a look at any of the featured articles, they only become featured because a small group of editors work on the article until it meets a high standard. If you were a "long-time fan" then you would know this.

3) We have NPOV which is meant to keep any group from gaming the system, don't believe then come out as a scientologist and try to edit any scientology articles, you will be reverted and blocked.

"As far as I know, no mechanism exists up to the moment to prevent the control of articles by companies, NGOs, think tanks, or groups of interest, and we have no guarantee that obsessive editors are not paid to defend this or that position. This is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia was conceived to be. I think obsessive editors are in principle suspect of interfering with POVs and a limitation of edits should be imposed on them."

There is a mechanism, it's called the Wikipedia community. If an article starts to sound like an advert it can be tagged or even deleted. And paid editing is also a blockable offense, but as a "long-time fan" you already know that, right?

"I will take as example the article pedophilia as suggested by the post mentioned above ([21]). I agree with the poster of that message that editors "Legitimus" ([22]) and "Jack-A-Roe" ([23]) behave as obsessive editors who have in practice the control of the article, as well as of similar articles in the same category. This example should be examined very closely by those who conceived Wikipedia in the first place – Jimmy Wales and the board of Wikimedia Foundation Inc."

I see, your second edit is to defend the position of a user who has been blocked three times against two users who have acres of discussion in their contributions. As a "long-time fan" you know that user have watchlists, lists of articles that they have chosen to keep an eye on, and that when one user keep making reverts or pushing a particular point of view then those editors will notice, because of their watchlist. Of course AleBZ is not obsessed because he has made 20,000 edits and only a handful are on paedophilia, or more accurately he has 37 article edits, 22 on that one article. That is obsessed.

AleBZ has been told to contact ArbCom to appeal his block, but it seems that he (and you) are determined to keep making baseless allegations about other editors rather than go through with the process the community has agreed.

"Obsessions turn people off" (Grover Norquist). Really? You are talking about a website built by obsessed people who proudly proclaim their obsessions in little boxes. If you're not obsessed then there is no point spending your free time here. Unless you have an agenda.

"This is one example. I'm sure that other sensitive pages or highly disputed categories are also subject to the control of clans of obsessive editors. This type of obsessive control over an article – similar to a military control – should be eliminated from Wikipedia. Obsessive users should have their edits limited per article or per subject (at least in key articles) and the participation in these articles should be forcibly pulverized among a bigger number of editors"

You really want to limit the amount of edits an editor working for free can make to any single article? So would this mean that AleBZ would have been told to edit something else after 22 edits to one article? Or does this only apply to editors that you don't like? Editors pick which articles they edit, and they pick how much time they spend on those articles and if they didn't then there would be no Wikipedia, and this would be Knol. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)