User talk:Vitalmove

Account abandoned due to cyberstalking by user:Perspicacite I have spent the last month filing complaints against Perspicacite, only to have them ignored and sometimes even mocked. After a month on this forum, it's clear that Wikipedia, like much of cyberspace, is not a tool by which regular people communicate, but rather a tool by which a few sociopaths exercise their wrath. Please do not write me as I have scrambled my password and won't be able to reply. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I can only hope that your lives are as miserable as you've made mine every time I have visited this forum.--Vitalmove 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Levine (journalist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Levine_%28journalist%29 --Vitalmove 07:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Watts
In answer to your question, I am not sure. The reason I tagged the article is that it is not enough context for me as someone who knows nothing about him whether he is sufficently notable or not. (Read up on WP:N and you will see what I mean).

If I were to guess, I would say being a host of a television would probably make him notable enough for him to have a page here. But it would depend on how important this television show is. As a rule of thumb, are there secondary sources (i.e. reliable websites, books, magazine artciles etc) about him in existance?

Your article is good enough that if someone thought it should be deleted, it wouldn't be deleted immediately but it would probably go to an AFD. That would give you about a week to improve it.Teiresias84 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes there are secondary sources. I linked seven mainstream media sources on him in the article. There are probably hundreds on the net. Press TV is also a worldwide network beamed to televisions in every country, and streamed on the internet. --Vitalmove 05:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't stress. I don't want to delete your article. I am just concerned that it might not be notable enough.


 * It's good to see that you are adding references from mainstream sources. I think the sources you have provided are reliable enough. However there are other problems with some of them. I'll run through them.


 * Reliable source. Good. However it terms of adding to Mark Watts notablity, it only mentions that he wrote a book, which in itself is not enough for inclusion. This should stay in the article for it is a reference for the fact he wrote a book, but it dosen't get him about WP:N.


 * This is written by Watts himself, which only proves himself to be a freelance journalist. Which again, by itself, is not sufficent.


 * proves only he was sued for slander. Lots of people are sued for slander.


 * Again, written by Watts. Adds nothing to notablity.


 * Good. Shows that he is the add of FOIA. If you can show FOIA to have had secondary sources, then that'll help alot.


 * Again backs up his journalistic credentals, although I saw nothing here that showed he was the chief investigative reporter.


 * Another example of his work as a freelance journalist.


 * My feeling is that this is a real boderline case. I was hoping for an article or two specifically about him, not involving him (hope that makes sense). Can you add something about his TV show. I think that is what potential makes him notable. But you only say he is the host of a show on a network I've never heard of (I am living on the other side of the world, granted. But that is the auidence you need to write for) in the introduction and never come back to it. Add some more on his show and it should be ok.


 * I hope this made sense. The point I am trying to make is just because an reliable source is written by someone or mentions someone, it doesn't make the subject inhertiely notable. I really don't mean to sound harsh either. The article is well written and you have used references which is a lot better than most other new editors. You just need to establish notability a little more. Any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.Teiresias84 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, any mainstream article can be described as "only saying" this and that about a person. The slander lawsuit was related to his successful book. I'll add another source for his prior title. The television station can be viewed on one of ten satellite bands as noted here http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=15384&sectionid=351020105 . Or you can view the internet stream here: mms://217.218.67.244/presslive . It's on twice a day I think. --Vitalmove 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I really want to stress I don't mean to come down too hard on you. It'll probably help if you add a couple of lines on the slander trial itself.Teiresias84 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like it would give a minor event too much attention. The book was huge not because of the slander lawsuit, but rather because of the information it contained. Also, there was no trial in the slander lawsuit. It was settled out of court for a relatively small amount (a few hundred thousand pounds), which is a common way to get rid of lawsuits. --Vitalmove 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Name
I ask you to please change your username, Vitalmove. The name contains the name of a wikipedia process, moving. This can be taken as inappropriate. You can change your username by asking a bureaucrat.

Best regards,

(Talk) 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I'll try --Vitalmove 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maraming salamat for trying. I am not assuming bad faith, but next time, respond on the Bibliotheque Official Complaints Cabal (BOCC). Again, salamat.  (forgive·disarm·unite) 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to change your name. "Move" is allowed in usernames. Andre (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * K, I removed the request. --Vitalmove 06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Press TV
You have now reverted my edits to Press TV three times. Four reversions to an article in 24 hours would be a violation of the WP:3RR rule. Please keep this in mind. Perspicacite 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep Vandalizing the article? Your edits are contradicted by cited sources later in the article, and you have no reason to delete a list of Press TV's programs. I am new so I do not know how to deal with a bully like you, but I will find out. --Vitalmove 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have filed a 3RR report on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You may comment here. I suggest you revert to my last edit. Otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Perspicacite 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I only revert (not delete) the most outlandish of personal attacks. The anti-Iranian accusation is quite funny when one considers that 90% of my edits are Angola-related. The Israeli government sure cares a lot about Angola, yessiree. Perspicacite 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The other 10% are against Muslims and Iranians. --Vitalmove 07:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As charming as your comments are, accusing other editors of 'working for the Israeli government, having an "anti-Muslim bias", and being 'bullies' are violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:EQ. In the past three days in which you've edited you've repeatedly been told to maintain civility. Since you continue nonetheless to accuse other editors of 'vandalism' over a content dispute, consider this a formal warning as such behavior merits a block. Perspicacite 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit history shows a pre-occupation with Muslim articles (in addition to Africa articles), and all of your edits are intended to cast Muslims in a less favorable light. Further, this is now your third frivolous attempt to prevent my participation in Wikipedia, all because I wanted to create an article on an Iranian television station. I'm not sure what your issues are. If you have a mental illness then please accept my hope that you get better. However, I am not interested in speaking with you again in any way. Stop wiki-stalking me. That is your only warning, before I research a way to get assistance. --Vitalmove 06:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) {unblock reviewed|

Dear Wikipedia,

Cyber-bullying is the key reason why many people choose not to interact on the internet. As an online community, we are not going to be successful unless we coral cyber-stalkers and bullies. Unfortunately, one user has successfully targeted me. This started when I entered Wikipedia to edit an article for an Iranian television station.

I added a list of the station's shows, but user: Perspicacite reverted my edits. He refused to explain his actions to an editor. . When I tried to correct this vandalism he had me banned on technicality for 3RR. Fortunately, the Press TV article has since been locked and is safe from his harm. I have also been unblocked.

Having found a target, he proceeded to unleash his wrath. Apparently by viewing my edit history, he discovered and targeted my article on Mark Levine (journalist), along with user:Zntrip. The article survived, but I had to waste time defending against the two of them. . He has been abusive and condescending on another Press TV page. Not satiated, he accused me of sock-puppeting. His accusations were shown to be baseless.

On a frenzy of harassment. he ignores my request to be left alone, and has now attempted to have me permanently banned. . His supporting evidence is the harassment described above, and his "ally" is the user Zntrip, with whom he had previously tried to ban the Mark Levine article. Note that even Zntrip has since abandoned him. In his request, he also falsely claims I insisted he was an Israeli agent.

All of this started because I wanted to add to an article for an Iranian television station. I have now had to waste days dealing with this cyber-bully, and it has caused me great stress to be targeted in this way. If this were the real world, I could easily get a restraining order. Unfortunately these sorts of people rule some parts of cyberspace. I think as a matter of policy Wikipedia needs to find a way to control this behavior. Wikipedia should be a place where parties share information by editing articles which interest them, not a playground for the mentally ill or anti-social. It is alarming to think someone like Perspicacite could have access to people's IP addresses and personal e-mail addresses (which I certainly will not reveal to wikipedia until I am more comfortable.) Articles related to Iran have just as much a right to exist as any other article, and I should not be targeted and harassed for editing one. I'm writing to see what protection Wikipedia provides against such behavior. --Vitalmove 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)}
 * I've unblocked you, since the page protection will force you to stop edit-warring anyway. I don't condone Perspicacite's behavior.  I have no idea why he would want the list of programs removed.  But remember there was another part to your edit, and that's probably what he had a problem with.  Next time, instead of insisting on reverting to your version, try to see if you can understand the objection and produce a compromise edit.  For instance, my feeling was that your list of programs was probably being reverted just because you kept re-introducing the other change.  You're doing the right thing, trying to discuss your changes.  Just try to remember to keep a cool head, and if you feel like you can't solve a problem on your own, there's always Dispute resolution, and WP:ANI, if administrative action is needed.  Mango juice talk 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * However, do consider this a stern warning against any further personal attacks and incivility. Try to let the interpersonal matter drop and just focus on the articles.  See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  Mango juice talk 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I didn't notice that the article was protected and that the block was thus unnecessary and effectively punitive, although I certainly did not mean it to be so. I do advise you, though, to be careful not to edit war in the future. Best, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

hi!!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Administrator's noticeboard
Non-admins are allowed to comment at those noticeboards. It's just that the section topics should be related to administrative tasks. Feel free to reinstate your comment you removed. Sancho 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PRESS TV
All of the sources seem to be self-descriptions, so I think we should leave it out of the main block until a third party authority confirmed actual independence. Actually, I didn't mean to revert that change. You had added it in since I started editing, and I didn't want to remake the same style tweaks. Incidentally, I think there's no reason to source the BBC funding. It's obvious, and the link might give the erroneous impression of synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The independence of this station will be controversial, so we need an explanation for it; a third-party evaluation. The BBC's independence arises from it's trust fund and separate directors. PRESS TV's corporate structure is not apparent like the BBC. Cool Hand Luke 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this to the talk page. --Vitalmove 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this station is more controversial than the BBC, more like Fox News Channel, which mentions its ownership upfront, but it's not a big deal to me. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it looks like you might have violated the three-revert rule. I don't use admin functions when I'm personally involved, so it's good that you self-reverted back. Otherwise Perspicacite might have been able to get you blocked. Cool Hand Luke 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
 You have been blocked for violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, exacerbated by these uncivil comments. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text  along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email any administrator from this list. Raymond Arritt 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Mark Levine (musician)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mark Levine (musician), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mark Levine (musician) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mark Levine (musician), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)