User talk:Swsprime

You fail to understand the purpose of Wikipedia
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 8. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Wikipedia is not a blog or webforum. It is a collection of information about subjects which have already been extensively written about by reliable sources. It is not a venue for people to publicize what they believe deserves to be noticed. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Orangemike, You said that I fail to understand the purpose of Wikipedia'? What sort of arrogance is that?
 * Simple statement of fact; see my comment below under (5).

Per se:

1. I did not add a commentary of my own, I questioned the deletion of an entry. 2. This subject has not been extensively written about, in fact there is nothing now in Wikipedia on it, so how could I add commentary? 3. I questioned the deletion because many people consider this subject something of importance. 4. I was encouraged to question the deletion by Wikipedia policy. 5. All entries require some contributor to believe that something 'deserves' to be noticed. How else do you get any entries? 6. My request for a review of the deletion was made on a discussion page, not as an edit of text.

However I'm sure from your original response, that you have some sort of superior attitude on this so I know I will get nowhere trying to question this deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swsprime (talk • contribs)
 * 1. You added a six-paragraph commentary, not about the article, but about how the topic is important and is being suppressed.
 * 2. You added the commentary to the talk page of a discussion (neglecting to sign it), although another editor was kind enough to move it to the actual discussion page itself for you.
 * 3, 4. You certainly have the right to question the deletion.
 * 5. We don't have articles because a subject "deserves" to be noticed; we have articles because a subject has in fact already been noticed by reliable sources. That is where I felt you fail to understand our purpose, the distinction between "worthy" and "notable". I'm sorry if you perceive that as arrogance; I thought of it as a statement of understanding.
 * 6. You did not make an argument for retention of the article or request for review, you made a political statement of the importance of the topic in modern-day society.
 * I've been around here for a while, so I do have a somewhat clearer understanding of how we operate (I am an administrator here), and I was attempting to share that understanding with a newcomer; I'm sorry if that comes across to you as "some sort of superior attitude". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk

I really don't know what to make of your comments. I never said in my original entry that I believed Wikipedia was suppressing entries on Thomas James Ball. I was in fact reporting the attitude of other people I have corresponded with. Here is what I said in full, (shown in brackets): (I believe Wikipedia should re insert the Biography of Thomas James Ball and enhance it, primarily by adding his Last Testament, which is a significant and revealing commentary on the affects of Government Agency and Legal Interventions in our post 20th century society showing the possible detrimental effects this is having on the nuclear unit (family group). Ball’s Last Testament, (a copy of which I attach,) is really a very good source on this event and a detailed alternative commentary on the issues of family law. It may be said that a person who takes his own life has an unbalanced mind, but this does not make his statements invalid, in fact in Ball’s case it clearly illustrates the incredible tensions he was under in this complicated modern world. There is great deal of interest if not clear unrest in the current state of family law. In the US we have the American Fathers Coalition, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the Coalition of Parental Support and the Fathers’ Manifesto all lobbying for change in the framework of family law. In the UK Fathers 4 Change creates a lot of news with its’ Fancy dress stunts by alienated male parents. This event of self-immolation by a father who believes he is victimized by the legal system is a first in the United States and has focused attention on this issue. For Wikipedia to ignore it does suggest to some that a feminist agenda has been established by effectively banning any entry on this man and his sad demise, and this is something that should be addressed. There is no downside to making a comprehensive entry on Thomas James Ball, but I would suggest that there maybe one if Wikipedia continues to refuse an entry. Wikipedia should be in the forefront of records and commentary on modern history, informing readers of things not just of the past, but also of the present. To wait for other Media such as National Newspapers to comment and record first is not sound policy, rather Wikipedia should set the agenda straight by reporting and recording this, disregarding any evaluation on the immediate journalistic ‘news impact’ it might have. I submit therefore that an entry should be made which also incorporates Ball’s Last Testament.)

Rather than being a political statement, it was an attempt to show this insertion's social importance. I do not belong to any political group or group related to displaced fathers. I do not relate to physically abusive fathers, and in a twenty six year marriage I have brought up four children without ever hitting them or their mother. However I am greatly interested in this subject and believe people should come to Wikipedia as an unbiased source of information on this man, as I did, and the information should be here. If it is not they go to other web locations that often are very biased.

With regard to your apology, if you were apologizing, I accept it; it is my wish to discuss the merits of this insertion versus its' deletion without attacking other parties with invective. Also please accept my apology for any personal comments I may have made in response.

Please also advise me: Do I need to put my name at the end of each insertion I make here? I am new to this and do not understand all of Wikipedia's protocols.
 * The discussion is taking place on the Deletion Review page; you should make your arguments there. Your statement seemed to me to be off-topic, particularly this passage: Wikipedia should be in the forefront of records and commentary on modern history, informing readers of things not just of the past, but also of the present. To wait for other Media such as National Newspapers to comment and record first is not sound policy, rather Wikipedia should set the agenda straight by reporting and recording this, disregarding any evaluation on the immediate journalistic ‘news impact’ it might have", which I still read as asserting that we should drop our standards of notability in favor of a subjective standard of what we speculate might be notable in the future.


 * Alas, communication this way is always fraught with opportunity for misunderstandings. I'm glad this misunderstanding is no longer inappropriately personalized on the part of either of us.


 * Yes, you should sign posts to this and other talk pages. Here's a canned template with full details and links: [[Image:Information.svg|25px|link=]] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. . -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk

Thank you too. --Swsprime (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)