User talk:ShadowKomet

Thank you to the one who hooked me up with title and Table of Contents code tags. ShadowKomet (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Part 1 - The first Encounter
You are self-evidently block evading. Now just stop it or you end up with an indefinable block Snowded  TALK 07:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please explain how it is I am "block evading", and provide clear and un-biased examples according to the Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please do explain how 3 posts qualifies me for a notice violation. ShadowKomet (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * newly created account repeating comments of blocked user: wait it out and behave or you\ll end up on a sock puppet report and a permanent ban. You're already on the age with yesterday's edit warring  Snowded  TALK 08:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here we go, so first thing, I'm not some "previous user", but I will admit to being new. Second, if my arguments sound similar to another person, perhaps you should first consider the merits of that argument before rejecting it out of hand, as that is behaving with bias. Third, though disappointed with the roll-backs to a severely neutered version of the page, I don't entirely disagree with it. The amount of "trash" information in the longer page is definitely, for lack of a better description, "interesting". Fourth, my opening act with my only account was to see if a revision of information to something observable and repeatable would be acknowledged, and it was not. It was instead being labeled as "biased". Fifth, all of Wikipedia is original research, as someone had to "originally research" for the materials to provide citations for published information on any given page, which makes the whole "no original research" aspect of the WP:NPOV quite confusing. It opens up the site to allow only a specific set of "neutrality", which is a bias that becomes difficult to challenge. So please define how I fit into "newly created account repeating comments of blocked user" ShadowKomet (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Meat puppet or sock puppet the overall point stands. Start to contribute on the talk page using proper sources and stop making statements based on your own opinions and views.  We only reflect the balance of what the reliable sources say, we do not try and write material which balances all parties to an argument.  It is a key aspect of wikipedia policy. Snowded  TALK 09:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But you are making statements and actions that can quite clearly be claimed as your own opinion. This starts to go back into where I said "truth is in the eyes of the beholder." Your "version" of neutrality is not the same as another persons view of neutrality, and as you are a more senior member of this site, it leans towards your version. Neutrality is only truly established when two sides disagree, as the middle-ground can then be seen, but you make your arguments, stating them to be from a neutral stand-point, when clearly we are at opposition, and therefore not neutral. However, by claiming a position of neutrality, you create a form of indoctrination, which again feeds into where I said your version of "neutrality" becomes difficult to challenge. As for reliable sources, there is no such thing in literature. Only what is observable and repeatable is reliable, but is something that I have watched some of your friends reject out of hand, and label "biased", without establishing a true point of neutrality to which you espouse. ShadowKomet (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what type of neutrality I espouse, what I am trying to do is to explain to you how wikipedia works. You can live with that or not as the mood takes you, but trying to work around it will just end up with blocks.  Your call  Snowded  TALK 09:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are again ignoring and rejecting my arguments out of hand instead of addressing them. If you couldn't tell, this has become a discussion, which is what I thought these talk pages were for. So will you please start addressing my arguments before moving to your default reactions? ShadowKomet (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am deliberately not addressing them as they are irrelevant to working on wikipedia. It is a community and it has rules about how things are done.  If you want to participate you have to either (i) live with them or (ii) try and get them changed.   if the latter then you need to argue a case at the talk page of the reliable sources link I gave you rather than on a single article.  I will say that I don't think you stand a cats chance in hell of changing the policy that we reflect a balance of what the reliable sources say and avoid synthesis or original research on primary sources and/or our own opinion.  We also do not allow off wiki recruitment or sock puppetry.  It is pretty evidence you have edited before.  Best to be open about that.   Snowded  TALK 10:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Again you are attacking me from your personal bias. Just because I can half-decently articulate an argument, it does not equate to having edited on Wikipedia before. And how can you try to change anything, if your arguments end up rejected out of hand "because it does not conform to how I usually discuss these things"? Be open about what? Being educated enough to have an argument? As so far, that is all I have done. And sorry, if you are talking about my use of code, 1) I'm still learning Wiki's use of code, and 2) I happen to learn quickly via exposure. So will you start addressing my arguments now? ShadowKomet (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm done. If you don't want to work within wikipedia structures then the results is pretty predictable. You can only change content within the rules of the policies I linked you to or you can try and change the policy. Nothing to do with how I work with people outside of wikipedia who I want to have discussions with or arguments for that matter. I've done my best, its now down to you Snowded  TALK 10:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But all you are doing is pointing me to something I have already read, and not clarifying its function. Tell me how it is you can "not do original research" while doing original research? Please explain this impasse to me. Let's start off nice and simple. ShadowKomet (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, this goes into you not addressing my arguments. ShadowKomet (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All set out in the links I've sent you. Someone from the tea party will probably post to your user page soon and they offer mentoring and training  Snowded  TALK 10:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for dodging me with another "I sent you the links", to which I just told you I have read. Thank you for default reactions instead of proper discussion. Thank you for being outstandingly useless. ShadowKomet (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Now someone show me how to title this thing and table-of-contents it. Please and thank you. ShadowKomet (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)