User talk:Typing.monkey/archive

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- D -Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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

You are indeed cool. Thanks for the welcome! Typing monkey 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Update
Tell Tyrone to check his messages. A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation has made an attempt to contact Stephen Colbert through his staff. In the meantime, I'm still gathering more information about the specific linking issue. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an edit summary in an admin's block log, not a message sent to anyone in any official capacity -- contrary to popular opinion, some Wikipedians do have a sense of humor. The message that was sent to him would represent an attempt to ascertain identity following an established procedure. If Colbert wants to promote his site here, all he needs to do is make a trivial effort to establish his identity to the Foundation, which is already seeking to contact him as we speak. Not that I have anything to do with this, but I thought I might alert you to a simple way around this. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheeh. I apologize for not being more clear. I didn't exactly expect you to go searching through miscellaneous site logs when I mentioned that someone from the Foundation was attempting to contact Colbert. The Wikimedia Fountation is, just to clear, the non-profit organization that handles Wikipedia's business and legal affairs. They're seeking to contact him, actually, over events related to the previous night's "Wikiality" discussion on the Report -- this is something I heard through the grapevine and not anything I know much about -- but I thought perhaps that if this site is indeed a scrappy little underdog of a marketing campaign for book whick Colbert considers his baby, he or a representative might want to bother to have a fifteen minute discussion which would allow tek-related information to happily coexist with Wikipedia's policies. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, but since the folks at the tekjansen site seem to be somewhat preoccupied with the status of a single link here -- and have us listed as their top referrer, despite the link being down half the time -- I thought the option might be of interest. No, huh? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re-read the above. I did not say they had to falsify the list in order for Wikipedia to be the top referrer. I suggested a brief phone conversation might be worth the trouble if we're generating the bulk of their traffic and they're looking to promote. Take a deep breath.
 * I also did not say Colbert has to verify his identity in any way. However, since the site seems to fail several points of our linking policy, yes, the site is likely to be removed without additional information being provided. I'm sorry, but the "it's relevant anyway" angle is fairly weak; the only reason this material would be an especially relevant resource on Colert would be if it was actually Colbert's writing. It does not have information on anything relevant to Stephen's biography. Generally speaking, we don't count fan forums as an invaluable, unique resource -- see WP:EL. That leaves the book, which, while possibly being Colbert's, is irrelevant if it's not. I could write a novel about Charlene and post in on my website, and that would also not be relevant. Or a novel about Stephen Colbert for that matter. In any case, I'm sorry that for some reason I seem to have pissed you off. I have no idea why you're so angry about this, but I assure you again, as I have assured you before, it's nothing personal. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My AMA request, which you seem to have found, was a private request for advice on how to handle a situation which has become somewhat tense. You are welcome to conduct a straw poll if you want -- I haven't followed through on that personally because I've already have openly solicited comments from editors at the Colbert talk page, and believe we already have a pretty good index of what most experienced editors think of the link. But go for it. As I have stated before, if there's a consensus to add the link, I won't remove it. I never, never, ever, not even once said that I will "refused to allow the link unless [myself] or a Wikipedia "official" is contacted by someone at the Colbert Report" so please stop misrepresenting my remarks. In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my asking another user for help and it does not represent bypassing a regular process. You are welcome to file your own request for advocacy, or undertake any other Wikipedia dispute resolution process, if you are so inclined, but my AMA subpage is not there for you to debate with me. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a publicly available page, and I will defend myself when you misrepresent me.Typing monkey 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Typing_monkey (talk) on Stephen Colbert  (NEW)
Brief: dispute involving link extortion and bias / inconsistent application of the External Linking guidelines (read full description)  -- Typing monkey 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read and/or help with my request for assistance. This dispute involves the sci-fi, action-adventure, romantic comedy, space opera “Stephen Colbert’s Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure”, which is being published online at [tekjansen.com] by “Tyrone.” Although coy about his identity, the site is clearly the work of (Stephen Tyrone) Colbert and sanctioned by Comedy Central, much like colbertnation.com, a faux “fansite” which is also authored and published by Comedy Central staffers.

The link is appropriate for the External Links section simply as a fansite, even if it were shown to be a hoax. The page currently links three fansites. At least two, and possibly all three, were links which were submitted by the sites’ respective owners, in violation of the External Linking guidelines. Tekjansen.com has been online longer, has far more traffic, more active forums, and more relevant content than any of them. I was hesitant to make this point because I am not requesting that tekjansen.com be listed instead of the currently-listed sites, but this is an example of how the guidelines are inconsistently applied.

In the course of our dispute over the link, the main editor of the page has demonstrated personal bias against the site. It appears he or she is more concerned about being “right” than being “fair.” In the course of discussion at Talk:Stephen Colbert, he or she has accused the site of falsifying its referrer reports, has referred to the site as “sketchy”, demanded that the site owner contact him or another Wikipedia representative to a) verify his identity and b) request that the site be linked. This kind of link extortion should not be sanctioned by Wikipedia. Again, it should not matter who authors the site.

The other party already has an advocate, and thus I am requesting your help in order to level the field. Thanks so much for taking the time to read my request, and I hope you will agree to lend your expertise in navigating this dispute.


 * Hello, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm looking this over before I go any further. If you need to send me anything else that you consider 'sensitive', you can access my email from my talk page, if you look at the the sidebar below the searchbox on the left. I'll get back to you shortly. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  01:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What you've given me is interesting. Do you know any more about than this about what's going on? I'm still having difficulty reconcilling various bits of information here. Particularly pertaining to motive. If this is SC's site, I'm not sure I understand the strange combination of ambiguousness about the author's identity and relatively pushy self-promotion. I read the bit about wanting feedback as to whether the novel would be worth anything to anyone without his name on it, but that seems inconsistant with releasing it in a context that heavilly implies the book is SC's. Plus, there's the comic book thing -- was this discussed on tj.com? I want to know what you know. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  02:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. I haven't initiated a mediation request yet. Let me mull this over a bit. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a publicly available page, and I will defend myself when you misrepresent me.Typing monkey 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does user LEE BAILEY say that the site does "push self-promotion". The people that run it don't self-prmote any more than Wiki's founders do. IT's the users who are in the know and have found reasable basis for it. Why does anyone promote anything? Because they believe in it, and now more than ever since the new front page of TJ is up. GBH 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Tekjansen dispute
Listen, I know you might not believe me when I say this, after all the back-and-forth about this link, but honestly, I really, really don't want to fight about this. I filed an AMA request because I wanted advice from a Wikipedia editor with more experience than me about how to handle stuff like this, including whether or not any of it was actually worth pursuing. I didn't mean to misrepresent your comments, and I apologize -- sincerely -- if I did.

I'm also sorry that in looking for help for a more experienced editor, I misjudged in the amount of privacy implied in moving a discussion to a subpage of my talk. There is a degree of transparency of everything in Wikipedia, but I figured that by moving comments to specifically-named subpage and not linking to it except from the AMA page, I would be able to sort out my feelings about the situation without offending anyone involved. Wisden has no special power in the conflict; I'm not appealing to anyone in order to get a decision handed down. It was not intended as an attack, merely to express what I'm worried about, with links to full discussions so I could get another viewpoint in an enivroment free of hostility. I think this essentially the same thing you were doing in commenting about our discussions in an outside forum -- asking for help, and seeking opinions. I'm sorry I didn't pursue it via email, which I realise now would have made more sense.

With regard to those forum threads, no invasion of privacy was intended. It was because you told me to read through the forums to get a better idea of the site that I saw them in the first place. And yes, in the interest of being 100% honest, those threads concerned me a bit. You have to understand that Wikipedia works hard to uphold the near-impossible ideal of decision making by consensus. One downside to that is that we're extremely vulnerable to organized groups editing to reflect a certain opinion or interest. Even though I don't think you were acting in bad faith by posting there, you can probably see where the discussion might have made me nervous. I mentioned them to Wisden because I was uncertain, not to accuse anyone of bad faith editing.

With regards to the Tyrone thing, I'll say again: it was intended as an idea of how to resolve the problem, not an ultimatum. My belief is that the link doesn't fit with our various policies related to linking, and my point in mentioning that Colbert could contact us was merely to suggest one way we could avoid all the argument. I'm sorry if I've expressed myself poorly on that point. I'm asking you now in the spirit of good faith to please believe me when I tell you that statements like "Tyrone is welcome to email me" weren't intended to mean anything more than "Tyrone is welcome to email me". I may have done a horrible job communicating here, partially because of being tired and frustrated, but I think if you look over the full conversations we've had, you'll see it is possible to read those comments as a constructive, if poorly thought-out, suggestion.

Regardless of all that, I'm sorry this has gotten so hostile. I really want to move on. As I've said before, I won't remove the link if there's a consensus to keep it -- ever. When the link is added without a rough consensus to do so on the article talk page, yes, I do feel I am within my rights to remove it, especially where the article relates to a biography of living person, where we generally err on the side of caution. But if most other editors feel the link belongs, I would never try and block that decision.

I just don't want to fight anymore. Wikipedia is something I do in my free time, often to unwind. I just want to be able to get back to writing articles and not have hostile messages on my talk page every time I log in. We have a difference of opinion about the link. I'm tired of debating something that we're never going to agree on, and at this point I'm sorry I opened an AMA request; I thought it would actually help rather than hurt. Really, I just want to move on. Can we? We're not getting anywhere. We're only making each other miserable. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really want to agree with what you've just suggested, but I think it makes more sense to defer to the opinion of others on the talk page if we're trying to drop this dispute. I've said I won't remove the link against consensus. Given the opinions that have been expressed on the talk page though, I don't think it's right to re-add it now without discussion. If you can gather a consensus to include the link, I won't act against that consensus. If you can gather a consensus to support the link with a suitable disclaimer, I'll support that too. I'm willing to defer to what others think if you're willing to also. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel this is unfair. I just don't feel a compromise position is for us to decide, nor is it fair to throw out the opinions of others on the talk page because your take on it is that everyone's emotions are running high and therefore they might be making bad decisions. Do you see where I'm coming from, at least?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  19:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my comments on the AMA page. I acknowledge doubt -- I don't know whether or or not the site belongs to Colbert. This isn't the same as saying I know the site does belong to Colbert, natch. Also, I much as I would like to be able to make the claim, I don't have a posse. I'm glad you like the rest of the work I've done on the article -- thank you. None of my changes to it though, have stuck as a result of me re-inserting them repeatedly, or because I have any special authority over the article. They're still present because others have thought they were worthwhile, and no one either removed them or complained about them. Generally speaking, it is considered an important rule of wiki-etiquette not to try to enforce your changes to an article by repeatedly making the same edit. It's part of playing well with others -- and regardless of what a certain satirist may have said about it recently on his cable tv show, Wikipedia is intended as a collaborative project, which is something that I still greatly respect.
 * I realise the Wikiality fiasco has tensions high. I'm also willing to wager that others are less tense about this link than you and I. Believing that others are capable of making this decision is part of assuming good faith. So now I want to ask you bluntly, and I hope you'll give me a direct answer: Are you going to continue to repeatly re-add the link 3 times a day, even if it's against the wishes expressed by other editors on the talk page? Or are you willing to let other people have a say, regardless of the eternal possibility of others being stressed, angry, tired, hungry, crazy, or otherwise human? I know you believe you are right, and you may very well be. With regards to the interpretation of our specific policies, though, and what's best for this encyclopedia, in this very unusual case, will you at least consider that you might be wrong? You've been here, from what I can tell, for only a few months, and mostly only been involved with this one issue. There are people who have been editing here for years, every single day, who eat, sleep, breathe these policies, can recite them backwards, and believe your interpretation is not correct. What I want to know is this : will you continue to re-add the link over their objections? Or are you willing to let other people have their say? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which pages in particular are you looking at? On the Stephen Colbert page, I see six editors who have argued the link does not belong, while arguing in favor I only see you and one anon at the ip address 24.18.162.88, who is responsible for the unsigned comments in the first tek jansen section. The edit signed "GBH" appears have come from the same anon, judging from this edit ) All of the edits on the Colbert Report talk page seem fairly neutral on the subject. Am I missing something? I'm not seeing a lot a discussion on the link elsewhere. -- (Lee)Bailey<sup style="color:black;">(talk) 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not familiar with the mediation or AMA process, so I wasn't really sure how to characterize it. I don't want you to think that I have any personal feelings about you or the site in question. Ibis3 03:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

re:Your AMA request (from an Advocate)
I'll be glad to help you with your problem, which as I understand it is that you want to include a certain link,

and there are others who want to keep it out,

and there is some question as to whether or not the link is suitable under the wikipedia guidelines,

and you want some help working through it

and you have been contacted by one of the main 'other parties' who has expressed a willingness to abide by whatever consensus arises.

If this is correct, would you like my help with the situation? I've had good success with similar disputes. User:Pedant 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)