Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Steve, That last comment was completely out of line ont eh admin thing. They accused an entire community of sock puppeting... on the basis of ONE new user account. There is no cospiracy to sock puppet the issue. Secondly, there IS NO CONFLICT of interest... again an attack on one user... and Michael verdi did not post his book... I did... and several others did over the course of the article. Thirdly, nearly every single admin judged the issue before any evidence against Pat was presented though I clearly asked for the time to present evidence since long term trolling is hard to reasearch and show, and said it was forthcoming. Imagine that, any court, trial, or jury process that happens without regard to evidence... that's sadly damning of wikipedia's process. A very fundamental flaw. Lastly the last thing this was was a vindication of Pat. It's mostly an issue of process... quite frankly user conflict is not as well documented as editing conflict resolution... there is a request for comment on user conduct... which I will be persuing given a few days, it is a far better first step on resolving the issue. -Mike On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK I mus stop posting here on this topic soon, but just to clarify how different the detail of wikipedia guidelines can be compared to the short version. The following is from the conflict of interest page I just linked to ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) , and I hope you will agree that it employs more common sense and balance about these matters than mine and others comments about wikipedia rules suggest: Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution — when editing in that area. The definition of too close in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. Campaigning Activities regarded by insiders as simply getting the word out may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. Citing oneself You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia, probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of wikipedia, or lead to questions about conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Its also true that people arent supposed to go around accusing eachother of conflicts of interest, and so thats why its probably just best for potentialy biased parties to steer clear of topics that are too close to home, or at least to read and digest the above page very carefully. As usual with these things, the rules are not totally set in stone, there can be exceptions, but all the nuanced detail of these processes and rules take many hours to read. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers (plain text version)
Spamming the list replying in a different thread? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey group, The results are back from Mmeiser's proposed Wikipedia ban of pdelongchamp. See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it: I fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia. - EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like 'this person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfair' -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that. -Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Is it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT. Apologies if I'm wrongheaded here -Cailil talk 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) This is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the poster of this complaint has failed to assume good fiath. âEagle101 Need help? 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) See no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above. Archive and suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute resolution. -Kzrulzuall Talk⢠Contribs 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Read the full proposed ban here: http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld I hope that we can put the issue to rest and consider that perhaps there's a possibility that I perchance might have perhaps been trying to improve the article and not the other way around. and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey group, The results of the Mmeiserââ¬â¢s Wikipedia ban are here. See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it: ââ¬ÅI fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia.ââ¬Â - EdJohnston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ââ¬ÅAgreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like ââ¬Ëthis person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfairââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â -Amarkov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amarkov moo! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amarkov 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ââ¬ÅAgreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that.ââ¬Â - Seraphimblade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade Talk to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ââ¬ÅIs it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mmeiser suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT . Apologies if I'm wrongheaded hereââ¬Â --Cailil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cailil talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cailil 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ââ¬ÅThis is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the poster of this complaint has failed to assume good fiath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF .ââ¬Â ââ¬Ã¢â¬ Eagle101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eagle_101 Need help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagle_101 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ââ¬ÅSee no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above. Archive and suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR .ââ¬Â --Kzrulzuall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kzrulzuall Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kzrulzuall ââ¬Â¢ Contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Wikipedia for credibility and to compete with established encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica, requires citation from authoritative sources. This is usually established media sources like New York Times, Time Magazine, ABC News, etc. People working on new developments on the net like Videoblogging are by it's nature going to be ahead of authoritative media and will initially be misrepresented. The development of net media are moving so fast and compete with the prior media, resulting in a tendency to be misrepresented in the prior media. So sticking strictly with Wikipedia's policy of authoritative citation will by it's nature misrepresent videoblogging. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Markus, I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact been trying to stick up for the vlog article. It was changes i made to the article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=70288801oldid=70288758) Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a wikipedia core content policy) The vocal people in this group seem to be misdirecting their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me. The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=125328951oldid=124431636) into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted nearly a year ago. As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion (because I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided that the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did research and made changes. Changes that saved it from getting deleted. I hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would probably have been deleted over and over again since then. Wikipedia has policies. Anyone can edit it but there's only a select kind of information that can go into it. People claim i've been making disruptive edits and dicking with the article for a year now. I challenge them to read the wikipedia definition of disruptive edits. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing) Has anyone really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who has been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way around? (see my defense in the ban request) I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the edit is provided. I can't really defend accusations that i've deleted everything for the last 2 years which is terribly inaccurate. pd On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Patrick, When I saw your initial post, I thought why is he posting in the wrong thread? and then I looked more carefully and got your joke. When you posted the text version, I thought is he now spamming? But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence the funny characters in the first version of that email. You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't help but wonder what kind of person you really are. Do you have a vlog? Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or your work anywhere. Markus On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd -- http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Very useful approach. When I find time, I'll do that. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So who wants to go through the 3 vlogging books written by this community and then jsut cite them in the wikipedia entry. isnt that all we have to do? I am sure that they devine vlog in there along with some od the genres etc right? where are all those academic papers folks have written? arent those reliable sources? let's just cite the heck out of it with sources we actually trust instead of using a magazine article written in 5 minutes... let's work together to follow wikipedia's rules but keep what we as vloggers know this new medium to be On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Markus, I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact been trying to stick up for the vlog article. It was changes i made to the article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=70288801oldid=70288758 ) Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a wikipedia core content policy) The vocal people in this group seem to be misdirecting their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me. The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=125328951oldid=124431636 ) into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted nearly a year ago. As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion (because I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided that the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did research and made changes. Changes that saved it from getting deleted. I hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would probably have been deleted over and over again since then. Wikipedia has policies. Anyone can edit it but there's only a select kind of information that can go into it. People claim i've been making disruptive edits and dicking with the article for a year now. I challenge them to read the wikipedia definition of disruptive edits. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing) Has anyone really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who has been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way around? (see my defense in the ban request) I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the edit is provided. I can't really defend accusations that i've deleted everything for the last 2 years which is terribly inaccurate. pd On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] markus.sandy%40mac.com wrote: HI Patrick, When I saw your initial post, I thought why is he posting in the wrong thread? and then I looked more carefully and got your joke. When you posted the text version, I thought is he now spamming? But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence the funny characters in the first version of that email. You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't help but wonder what kind of person you really are. Do you have a vlog? Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or your work anywhere. Markus On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd -- http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com www.SlowLorisMedia.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Crossing a line? There are 1 articles on Wikipedia with unsourced statements, and you've spent the last year obsessively purging a single one of them, while gaming the social system there and building a clan to defend against any potential challenges. What's a little heated language for such an accomplished griefer? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Delongchamp Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 13:51 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpu ppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Oh come off it! As far as Im concerned you've dug your own hole by not making your case properly. Why havent you provided the info the wikipedia admins asked for? Im glad that attempts to harness the mob without careful consideration and better, less emotional, stating of your case, have failed. The more this ranting continues, the less convinced I am that Pat was in the wrong on this. Some of the discussions on the wikipedia page about Pat being banned made me ashamed. Claims that hundreds of people here are up in arms over the thing, its just not true. Sure there have been lots of emails in the group about this, but a lot of them are insult-based and from the same core of people. Three cheers for due process and down with the rule of the mob. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PEOPLE! I'm sort of furious. I cannot hide it. Only ONE person... Michael Verdi has responded,, voted, cited any reason for patrik needing to be banned or otherwise rebuked for his abuse of the delete button on the wikipedia vlogging article. http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn This is just typical B.S. and I cannot hide my frustration any longer. I mine as well have not even bothered to waste my time posting this vote. It will be OVER in less than 24 hours... not because there's some deadline but because only one of you has bothered to respond. What's more you're GIVING PAT AMMO! AND giving him a history to which he can refer when he continues to delete all your future contributions!! it's OK... see because the admins said soo! That's is to paraphrase exactly what he's said in this email! 1) Patrick has painted this as a personal dispute between he and I. He's cited some edits from way back when by me that probably weren't worthy of the article to the ignorance of ALL ELSE THAT HAS COME BEFORE AND SINCE! This isn't about the worthiness of my edits I'm sticking up for everyone's edits! The issue is he deleted EVERYONE's contributions automatically with little regard, and has continued to do so over the last two years. 2) As soon as there's any attention to the article or Patrick's poor conduct and abuse of the delete button he pretends to be all nice again, and makes a few contributions to pretend like he's not just deleting... then he goes right back to his same old pattern of automatically deleting all contributions. 3) That he's recieving these votes from admins is because they can't see his long history and NOONE save Michael Verdi is fucking standing up. Now I've made the pledge to go back in and total up all the empiracal evidence on the number of times he's revereted and deleted contributions vs. the number of contributions. But you need to get the fuck in there like Michael verdi did, vote one way or the other, and start citing some good damn references on things that were deleted and how quickly they were deleted by Pat. There were over 100 emails bitching and moaning about this issue in the last 24 - 48 hours... and I worked my ass off to give you a forum on wikipedia to express your thoughts and opinions to the admin and only ONE of you bothered. I've put my ass on the line and it's hanging in the wind... so yes I'm going to speak up. I don't care how you vote, yah, nay, indifferent, cite a reference... ask if there's some alternative... but to NOT EVEN BOTHER... that's unconscionable. If this is a reflection of the level of interest in the videoblogging article then fuck it... let pat continue to go around thinking he's the gatekeeper of the damn article and all edits need his approval. Sorry, I am going to use fuck alot... because this is quite nearly it for me on this issue and I think you all need a good kick in the pants to actually take an action. The amount of bitching is amazing, and the complete lack of action is absolutely baffling. We haven't had this much chatter since Cindy Shehan or MyHeavy started using all your content to raise funding... or 49 bloggers guy told Chuck Olsen and his Blogumentary to fuck off. I keep wracking my brain... why? Is it because the process of voting is to complex? Is it because I'm to wordy of a mofo and have failed to make the issue clear... is it because people are burnt out on the moral outrage... Why? Wikipedia is NOT that hard to edit... it takes about 5 minutes to go post yay or nay and why! If this ends up being a case that is a landslide victory for pdelongchamp because none of you cared then I will be FINISHED with this article... and severly disselusioned with this community. I know have more respect then ever for Richard BF, Michael Verdi and others who've gone through this all before. I can't believe noone will raise a finger. Go there... http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn Scroll down to the section on Pdelongchamp... click edit and leave your opinion... ANY opinion... if you think I'm wrong leave
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Let me clarify a little. When this issue was posted here, I wsnted to learn more, I wanted the question marks to disappear, so I could form my own opinion bout whether Pat is a troll or whether people have the wrong idea about wikipedia, or a subtle blend of the 2. I got plenty of posts from people that suggested some ignorance or dislike for some of wikipedias main rules, and I got the beginnings of evidence of Pat's history, but not enough detail. I guess I probably want to see the same kind of thing that the wiki admins are asking for. Now Im not disputing that there are quite a lot of people here who have expressed outrage at whats been happening, but I couldnt say it is hundreds of people, nor can I judge how much most of them have studied the details, nor what they understand wikipedia to be. Now clearly there are some people who have been personally affected, and so I can esily conclude that Pat has pissed off some people over a long time period, and they are at the end of their tether and have resorted to swearing etc. But thats not the same as him abusing wikipedia with bad intent, and not enough for me to go and stick my nose into issues about whether he should be barred from wikipedia. I can empathise with the feeling of the community losing interest when it comes to details. Theres been a number of times that people have been up in arms about creative commons violators, and Ive gone off and done boring research into legal details, posted about it, but there is no response. This does pose a problem for my love of due process, in that the majority may have time to get angry and shout about some issue, but the realities of most peoples lives mean this will not translate into all these people then engaging with the (usually rather dull and complex) long-term solution. This who issue was certainly not helped by the fact that some people seem to have a problm with wikipedias policies, are calling for the rejection of wikipedia in general, yet still want to enforce their will by using wikipedias processes. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come off it! As far as Im concerned you've dug your own hole by not making your case properly. Why havent you provided the info the wikipedia admins asked for? Im glad that attempts to harness the mob without careful consideration and better, less emotional, stating of your case, have failed. The more this ranting continues, the less convinced I am that Pat was in the wrong on this. Some of the discussions on the wikipedia page about Pat being banned made me ashamed. Claims that hundreds of people here are up in arms over the thing, its just not true. Sure there have been lots of emails in the group about this, but a lot of them are insult-based and from the same core of people. Three cheers for due process and down with the rule of the mob. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-com@ wrote: PEOPLE! I'm sort of furious. I cannot hide it. Only ONE person... Michael Verdi has responded,, voted, cited any reason for patrik needing to be banned or otherwise rebuked for his abuse of the delete button on the wikipedia vlogging article. http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn This is just typical B.S. and I cannot hide my frustration any longer. I mine as well have not even bothered to waste my time posting this vote. It will be OVER in less than 24 hours... not because there's some deadline but because only one of you has bothered to respond. What's more you're GIVING PAT AMMO! AND giving him a history to which he can refer when he continues to delete all your future contributions!! it's OK... see because the admins said soo! That's is to paraphrase exactly what he's said in this email! 1) Patrick has painted this as a personal dispute between he and I. He's cited some edits from way back when by me that probably weren't worthy of the article to the ignorance of ALL ELSE THAT HAS COME BEFORE AND SINCE! This isn't about the worthiness of my edits I'm sticking up for everyone's edits! The issue is he deleted EVERYONE's contributions automatically with little regard, and has continued to do so over the last two years. 2) As soon as there's any attention to the article or Patrick's poor conduct and abuse of the delete button he pretends to be all nice again, and makes a few contributions to pretend like he's not just deleting... then he goes right back to his same old pattern of automatically deleting all contributions. 3) That he's recieving these votes from admins is because they can't see his long history and NOONE save Michael Verdi is fucking standing up. Now I've made the pledge to go back in and total up all the empiracal evidence on the number of times he's revereted and deleted contributions vs. the number of contributions.
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Ive read it till Im blue in the face. Its clear Pat has made a lot of edits, but Im still waiting for someone to post a specific example of his behaviour at its worst. Lets stop being vague, show me some specific info that he deleted, that he wasnt right to do so. Because when I try to spend hours reading this stuff, I see loads of edit info stating why things were deleted, and I keep agreeing with the decision. So maybe Im being unlucky and picking poor examples, so show me some good ones. Plase no examples that boil down to stuff about whether blogs are reliable sources, then sorry, Im not going to side with people here on that one, its an encyclopedia and I respect their sourcing rules. No original research! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Watkins - go read the history on the videoblogging article. On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come off it! As far as Im concerned you've dug your own hole by not making your case properly. Why havent you provided the info the wikipedia admins asked for? Im glad that attempts to harness the mob without careful consideration and better, less emotional, stating of your case, have failed. The more this ranting continues, the less convinced I am that Pat was in the wrong on this. Some of the discussions on the wikipedia page about Pat being banned made me ashamed. Claims that hundreds of people here are up in arms over the thing, its just not true. Sure there have been lots of emails in the group about this, but a lot of them are insult-based and from the same core of people. Three cheers for due process and down with the rule of the mob. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-com@ wrote: PEOPLE! I'm sort of furious. I cannot hide it. Only ONE person... Michael Verdi has responded,, voted, cited any reason for patrik needing to be banned or otherwise rebuked for his abuse of the delete button on the wikipedia vlogging article. http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn This is just typical B.S. and I cannot hide my frustration any longer. I mine as well have not even bothered to waste my time posting this vote. It will be OVER in less than 24 hours... not because there's some deadline but because only one of you has bothered to respond. What's more you're GIVING PAT AMMO! AND giving him a history to which he can refer when he continues to delete all your future contributions!! it's OK... see because the admins said soo! That's is to paraphrase exactly what he's said in this email! 1) Patrick has painted this as a personal dispute between he and I. He's cited some edits from way back when by me that probably weren't worthy of the article to the ignorance of ALL ELSE THAT HAS COME BEFORE AND SINCE! This isn't about the worthiness of my edits I'm sticking up for everyone's edits! The issue is he deleted EVERYONE's contributions automatically with little regard, and has continued to do so over the last two years. 2) As soon as there's any attention to the article or Patrick's poor conduct and abuse of the delete button he pretends to be all nice again, and makes a few contributions to pretend like he's not just deleting... then he goes right back to his same old pattern of automatically deleting all contributions. 3) That he's recieving these votes from admins is because they can't see his long history and NOONE save Michael Verdi is fucking standing up. Now I've made the pledge to go back in and total up all the empiracal evidence on the number of times he's revereted and deleted contributions vs. the number of contributions. But you need to get the fuck in there like Michael verdi did, vote one way or the other, and start citing some good damn references on things that were deleted and how quickly they were deleted by Pat. There were over 100 emails bitching and moaning about this issue in the last 24 - 48 hours... and I worked my ass off to give you a forum on wikipedia to express your thoughts and opinions to the admin and only ONE of you bothered. I've put my ass on the line and it's hanging in the wind... so yes I'm going to speak up. I don't care how you vote, yah, nay, indifferent, cite a reference... ask if there's some alternative... but to NOT EVEN BOTHER... that's unconscionable. If this is a reflection of the level of interest in the videoblogging article then fuck it... let pat continue to go around thinking he's the gatekeeper of the damn article and all edits need his approval. Sorry, I am going to use fuck alot... because this is quite nearly it for me on this issue and I think you all need a good kick in the pants to
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think? Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd like to say that after the close following of these wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the conclusion that a certain someone has a Teeny. Weenie. Peenie. Kisses, Bekah (I couldn't participate in the wikibanapalooza. I can't figure out how to edit them for the life of me, and I actually don't care for Wikipedia in the least although I respect those who do. Clearly it's best that I didn't vote: who wants to invite angry emails from someone with such a peenie problem?) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi michael@ wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp pdelongchamp@pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
No original research? Why not? Why use new media to define new media with a requirement that the validation come from old media. That's just plain asinine. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ive read it till Im blue in the face. Its clear Pat has made a lot of edits, but Im still waiting for someone to post a specific example of his behaviour at its worst. Lets stop being vague, show me some specific info that he deleted, that he wasnt right to do so. Because when I try to spend hours reading this stuff, I see loads of edit info stating why things were deleted, and I keep agreeing with the decision. So maybe Im being unlucky and picking poor examples, so show me some good ones. Plase no examples that boil down to stuff about whether blogs are reliable sources, then sorry, Im not going to side with people here on that one, its an encyclopedia and I respect their sourcing rules. No original research! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michael@ wrote: Steve Watkins - go read the history on the videoblogging article. On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Oh come off it! As far as Im concerned you've dug your own hole by not making your case properly. Why havent you provided the info the wikipedia admins asked for? Im glad that attempts to harness the mob without careful consideration and better, less emotional, stating of your case, have failed. The more this ranting continues, the less convinced I am that Pat was in the wrong on this. Some of the discussions on the wikipedia page about Pat being banned made me ashamed. Claims that hundreds of people here are up in arms over the thing, its just not true. Sure there have been lots of emails in the group about this, but a lot of them are insult-based and from the same core of people. Three cheers for due process and down with the rule of the mob. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-com@ wrote: PEOPLE! I'm sort of furious. I cannot hide it. Only ONE person... Michael Verdi has responded,, voted, cited any reason for patrik needing to be banned or otherwise rebuked for his abuse of the delete button on the wikipedia vlogging article. http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn This is just typical B.S. and I cannot hide my frustration any longer. I mine as well have not even bothered to waste my time posting this vote. It will be OVER in less than 24 hours... not because there's some deadline but because only one of you has bothered to respond. What's more you're GIVING PAT AMMO! AND giving him a history to which he can refer when he continues to delete all your future contributions!! it's OK... see because the admins said soo! That's is to paraphrase exactly what he's said in this email! 1) Patrick has painted this as a personal dispute between he and I. He's cited some edits from way back when by me that probably weren't worthy of the article to the ignorance of ALL ELSE THAT HAS COME BEFORE AND SINCE! This isn't about the worthiness of my edits I'm sticking up for everyone's edits! The issue is he deleted EVERYONE's contributions automatically with little regard, and has continued to do so over the last two years. 2) As soon as there's any attention to the article or Patrick's poor conduct and abuse of the delete button he pretends to be all nice again, and makes a few contributions to pretend like he's not just deleting... then he goes right back to his same old pattern of automatically deleting all contributions. 3) That he's recieving these votes from admins is because they can't see his long history and NOONE save Michael Verdi is fucking standing up. Now I've made the pledge to go back in and total up all the empiracal evidence on the number of times he's revereted and deleted contributions vs. the number of contributions. But you need to get the fuck in there like Michael verdi did, vote one way or the other, and start citing some good damn references on things that were deleted and how quickly they were deleted by Pat. There were over 100 emails bitching and moaning about this issue in the last 24 - 48 hours... and I worked my ass off to give you a forum on wikipedia to express your thoughts and opinions to the admin and only ONE of you bothered. I've put my ass on the line and it's hanging in the wind... so yes I'm going to speak up. I don't care how you vote, yah, nay, indifferent, cite a reference... ask if there's some alternative... but to NOT EVEN BOTHER...
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
She's right. It's pretty mini. On 5/3/07, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think? Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd like to say that after the close following of these wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the conclusion that a certain someone has a Teeny. Weenie. Peenie. Kisses, Bekah (I couldn't participate in the wikibanapalooza. I can't figure out how to edit them for the life of me, and I actually don't care for Wikipedia in the least although I respect those who do. Clearly it's best that I didn't vote: who wants to invite angry emails from someone with such a peenie problem?) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi michael@ wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp pdelongchamp@pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me. People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item David Howell asks : No original research? Why not? And then Why use new media to define new media with a requirement that the validation come from old media. This is the problem. People are adding content that they know to be true because they are the movers and shakers, yet the content doesn't meet the policies of Wikipedia for citation and verifiability. And people are really upset at pdelongchamp for enforcing the Wiki policies. There seem to be two issues: 1) not agreeing with the policies that don't allow original research and 2) the manner in which pdelongchamp enforces the policies. There's not much you can do about #1 except wait for more verifiable sources to emerge or take the game somewhere else (which I believe Verdi setup something on pbwiki). I agree that it doesn't make much sense to only allow old media to define the faster paced new media. Now #2 is stickier. I looked over the history page and edits that pdelongchamp made stated the reason was not being in line with wiki policy. It could very well be that he gets his kicks by causing everyone frustration. I don't know, I don't know him but if I'm just going by what I've seen on here, it doesn't seem that way. I understand that many of you know each other and are friends in Real Life and want to stick by each other. I've only met three other videobloggers (but I hope to change that in the near future) so I can give a fairly objective view on the exchanges here. pdelongchamp has been called names and cursed at, yet his responses are well-measured, civil and only speak of improving the article according to Wikipedia policy. Either he's not quite what people are making him out to be or he's two-faced and manipulative. People are unhappy with Wikipedia's policy and are aiming their frustration at the person enforcing it. I think if pdelongchamp went away and never came back, there would be someone else to take his place as gatekeeper. -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On May 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: I dont think its asinine, I think its a basic concept of an ecyclopedia. Now Im quite prepared to admit that this doesnt make encyclopedia's the best source for detailed info on rapidly emerging fields, and I would be quite happy if sites people played with alternatives with different rules, something that isnt wikipedia. My great concern though is how much this 'ban pat' stuff is merged in with these issues. Even if there are a million vloggers here who think the wikipedia rules are silly, that doesnt mean we can force change of the rules when it comes to the vlog page on wikipedia. Now there is a wikipedia rule about ignoring the rules, which in an ideal world could have been used to try to address this issue, but I find the current debate practically unsalvagable as it has become too personal. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Kary - this is a well thought out and written summaryand it has no place in this flame war (I kid, I play, I joke) Very nice reply Kary Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me. People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item David Howell asks : No original research? Why not? And then Why use new media to define new media with a requirement that the validation come from old media. This is the problem. People are adding content that they know to be true because they are the movers and shakers, yet the content doesn't meet the policies of Wikipedia for citation and verifiability. And people are really upset at pdelongchamp for enforcing the Wiki policies. There seem to be two issues: 1) not agreeing with the policies that don't allow original research and 2) the manner in which pdelongchamp enforces the policies. There's not much you can do about #1 except wait for more verifiable sources to emerge or take the game somewhere else (which I believe Verdi setup something on pbwiki). I agree that it doesn't make much sense to only allow old media to define the faster paced new media. Now #2 is stickier. I looked over the history page and edits that pdelongchamp made stated the reason was not being in line with wiki policy. It could very well be that he gets his kicks by causing everyone frustration. I don't know, I don't know him but if I'm just going by what I've seen on here, it doesn't seem that way. I understand that many of you know each other and are friends in Real Life and want to stick by each other. I've only met three other videobloggers (but I hope to change that in the near future) so I can give a fairly objective view on the exchanges here. pdelongchamp has been called names and cursed at, yet his responses are well- measured, civil and only speak of improving the article according to Wikipedia policy. Either he's not quite what people are making him out to be or he's two-faced and manipulative. People are unhappy with Wikipedia's policy and are aiming their frustration at the person enforcing it. I think if pdelongchamp went away and never came back, there would be someone else to take his place as gatekeeper. -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On May 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: I dont think its asinine, I think its a basic concept of an ecyclopedia. Now Im quite prepared to admit that this doesnt make encyclopedia's the best source for detailed info on rapidly emerging fields, and I would be quite happy if sites people played with alternatives with different rules, something that isnt wikipedia. My great concern though is how much this 'ban pat' stuff is merged in with these issues. Even if there are a million vloggers here who think the wikipedia rules are silly, that doesnt mean we can force change of the rules when it comes to the vlog page on wikipedia. Now there is a wikipedia rule about ignoring the rules, which in an ideal world could have been used to try to address this issue, but I find the current debate practically unsalvagable as it has become too personal. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Great post :) You put it all exceedingly well. Thanks to Jays constructive approach, Ive joined wikipedia and am on the talk page. Im doing a lot more reading before I do any daring edits though. For me, judging by what Ive said here in the last few days, my personal balancing act will be how to avoid being a wikinazi whilst at the same time trying to keep in the spirit guidelines of wikipedia. I dont particularily want to become some hated gatekeeper, but I would consider it a duty to keep the content broadly in line with what wikipedia is supposed to be. Honestly I scratch my head sometimes over peoples attitudes to publishing on the net. Theres some weird ideas that freedom of speech/freedom of press means the right to have what you believe to be true published anywhere you really think it should be. Anyway as part of the process of finding balance, I am currently looking at which videoblogs, people, and services/sites have entries in wikipedia. For that is another area frought with controversy, who is considered notable enough to be included in a modern version of an encyclopedia? Not me, I am sure of that, and long may it be so :) Anyways here we quickly find outselves back in 'a-list' territory. Perhaps this is another reason why wikipedias policies may seem particularily innapropriate to many bloggers, the dream of the importance of mass media diminishing, is shattered if you can only become notable by being covered by mass media. No new technology or site or wiki is going to save us from ourselves, oh human nature, if only we could evolve ye significantly in a lifetime. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me. People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item David Howell asks : No original research? Why not? And then Why use new media to define new media with a requirement that the validation come from old media. This is the problem. People are adding content that they know to be true because they are the movers and shakers, yet the content doesn't meet the policies of Wikipedia for citation and verifiability. And people are really upset at pdelongchamp for enforcing the Wiki policies. There seem to be two issues: 1) not agreeing with the policies that don't allow original research and 2) the manner in which pdelongchamp enforces the policies. There's not much you can do about #1 except wait for more verifiable sources to emerge or take the game somewhere else (which I believe Verdi setup something on pbwiki). I agree that it doesn't make much sense to only allow old media to define the faster paced new media. Now #2 is stickier. I looked over the history page and edits that pdelongchamp made stated the reason was not being in line with wiki policy. It could very well be that he gets his kicks by causing everyone frustration. I don't know, I don't know him but if I'm just going by what I've seen on here, it doesn't seem that way. I understand that many of you know each other and are friends in Real Life and want to stick by each other. I've only met three other videobloggers (but I hope to change that in the near future) so I can give a fairly objective view on the exchanges here. pdelongchamp has been called names and cursed at, yet his responses are well-measured, civil and only speak of improving the article according to Wikipedia policy. Either he's not quite what people are making him out to be or he's two-faced and manipulative. People are unhappy with Wikipedia's policy and are aiming their frustration at the person enforcing it. I think if pdelongchamp went away and never came back, there would be someone else to take his place as gatekeeper. -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On May 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: I dont think its asinine, I think its a basic concept of an ecyclopedia. Now Im quite prepared to admit that this doesnt make encyclopedia's the best
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support a names and the page is sort of long, so hopefully yahoo won't break the url, or if it does you can piece it back together, because it's really important stuff. I had wanted to take a day or two to just let it cool down... but unforetunatly it would have been over before it had begun as pat email that started this thread confirms. Admins were starting to just make snap judgements based on pat's evidence without considering that I hadn't posted any yet... just prsented the basis of the argument. Mistake or not I'd not yet begun to present evidence, merely presented the issue. I hope others will feel free to also add evidence of whatever sort they can offer. Specific instances are great, but don't feel you need to submit evidence. If you just leave a comment and show your support that'd be great. God knows i need all the help I can get. Presenting evidence of long term trolling is tough stuff. Pat rolls out one or two of his better edits... but how can I possibly sum up all the endless examples of deletes. I've broken it down into several sections. 1) community feedback, consensus and substantive evidence 2) Editing as a form of retribution 3) Repeated mass blanking aka mass deleting of article contents despite community consensus 4) Examples of chronic, unwarranted and persistent deletions Could use all the help I can get. P.S. Steve Watkins, no harm no fowl... you were right on on my failure to properly cite evidence. In my defense I merely stated the outline of my case... a first step. Now that I've at least started to post evidence I hope this does a lot to clarify the issue for you. If you still believe I'm full of crap please let me know, I value the honesty and third party perspective, and unlike others I have a fairly thick skin when it comes to name calling and foul language... my call on the carpet, or whatever you want to call it was do the urgency of the matter now that the admins are voting on it. Peace, -Mike mmeiser.com/blog On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great post :) You put it all exceedingly well. Thanks to Jays constructive approach, Ive joined wikipedia and am on the talk page. Im doing a lot more reading before I do any daring edits though. For me, judging by what Ive said here in the last few days, my personal balancing act will be how to avoid being a wikinazi whilst at the same time trying to keep in the spirit guidelines of wikipedia. I dont particularily want to become some hated gatekeeper, but I would consider it a duty to keep the content broadly in line with what wikipedia is supposed to be. Honestly I scratch my head sometimes over peoples attitudes to publishing on the net. Theres some weird ideas that freedom of speech/freedom of press means the right to have what you believe to be true published anywhere you really think it should be. Anyway as part of the process of finding balance, I am currently looking at which videoblogs, people, and services/sites have entries in wikipedia. For that is another area frought with controversy, who is considered notable enough to be included in a modern version of an encyclopedia? Not me, I am sure of that, and long may it be so :) Anyways here we quickly find outselves back in 'a-list' territory. Perhaps this is another reason why wikipedias policies may seem particularily innapropriate to many bloggers, the dream of the importance of mass media diminishing, is shattered if you can only become notable by being covered by mass media. No new technology or site or wiki is going to save us from ourselves, oh human nature, if only we could evolve ye significantly in a lifetime. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me. People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to the actual wikipedia issues. Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being called for . The last post that was made before it was deleted seemed to sum things up quite well, its broadly the same opinion as I have formed myself: ===Comments after looking at the evidence=== - Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to CSN? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of WP:MEAT and a serious one - [[WP:SPA|Single purpose accounts]] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible [[WP:COI]] problem here - authors or those associated with them should ''not'' be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. br / - I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=nextoldid=106060604 here] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight [[WP:AGF|lack of AGF]] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogoldid=104826246] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faithbr / Mmeiser the vloggers, you should have [[WP:RFC|requested comment]] in order to build a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser should have taken [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] advice and [[Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages|created temporary page]] in their userspace. [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] has made a trojan effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides--[[User:Cailil|font color=grey size=2'''Cailil'''/font]] sup[[User_talk:Cailil|font color=grey'''talk'''/font]]/sup 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) - PS there was an edit conflict haven't seen Pdelongchamp's post yet--[[User:Cailil|font color=grey size=2'''Cailil'''/font]] sup[[User_talk:Cailil|font color=grey'''talk'''/font]]/sup 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I take particular note of their points about meatpuppets and conflicts of interest. Had everyone from the group steamed onto wikipedia and acted as some asked, this would have been a far more serious violation of wikipedia than any of the editing thats ever been done to the vlogging page by anybody. Anyway Im mostly interested in the articles, not people being punished, so lets hope everything can calm down now, the wikipedia entry can be useful but restrained, and otehr wikis can be a place for more detail that doesnt meet wikipedias requirements. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support a names and the page is sort of long, so hopefully yahoo won't break the url, or if it does you can piece it back together, because it's really important stuff. I had wanted to take a day or two to just let it cool down... but unforetunatly it would have been over before it had begun as pat email that started this thread confirms. Admins were starting to just make snap judgements based on pat's evidence without considering that I hadn't posted any yet... just prsented the basis of the argument. Mistake or not I'd not yet begun to present evidence, merely presented the issue. I hope others will feel free to also add evidence of whatever sort they can offer. Specific instances are great, but don't feel you need to submit evidence. If you just leave a comment and show your support that'd be great. God knows i need all the help I can get. Presenting evidence of long term
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are published booksif that isn't relevant then I don't know what is. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to the actual wikipedia issues. Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being called for . The last post that was made before it was deleted seemed to sum things up quite well, its broadly the same opinion as I have formed myself: ===Comments after looking at the evidence=== - Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to CSN? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of WP:MEAT and a serious one - [[WP:SPA|Single purpose accounts]] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible [[WP:COI]] problem here - authors or those associated with them should ''not'' be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. br / - I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Video_blogdiff=nextoldid=106060604 here] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight [[WP:AGF|lack of AGF]] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Video_blogoldid=104826246] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faithbr / Mmeiser the vloggers, you should have [[WP:RFC|requested comment]] in order to build a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser should have taken [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] advice and [[Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages|created temporary page]] in their userspace. [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] has made a trojan effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides--[[User:Cailil|font color=grey size=2'''Cailil'''/font]] sup[[User_talk:Cailil|font color=grey'''talk'''/font]]/sup 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) - PS there was an edit conflict haven't seen Pdelongchamp's post yet--[[User:Cailil|font color=grey size=2'''Cailil'''/font]] sup[[User_talk:Cailil|font color=grey'''talk'''/font]] /sup 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I take particular note of their points about meatpuppets and conflicts of interest. Had everyone from the group steamed onto wikipedia and acted as some asked, this would have been a far more serious violation of wikipedia than any of the editing thats ever been done to the vlogging page by anybody. Anyway Im mostly interested in the articles, not people being punished, so lets hope everything can calm down now, the wikipedia entry can be useful but restrained, and otehr wikis can be a place for more detail that doesnt meet wikipedias requirements. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-com@ wrote: FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard# Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support a names and the page is sort of long, so hopefully yahoo won't break the url, or if it does you can piece it back together, because it's really important stuff. I had wanted to take a day or two to just let it cool down... but unforetunatly it would have been over before it had begun as pat email that started this thread confirms. Admins were starting to just make snap judgements based on pat's evidence without considering that I hadn't posted any yet... just prsented
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia, probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of wikipedia, or lead to questions about conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Its also true that people arent supposed to go around accusing eachother of conflicts of interest, and so thats why its probably just best for potentialy biased parties to steer clear of topics that are too close to home, or at least to read and digest the above page very carefully. As usual with these things, the rules are not totally set in stone, there can be exceptions, but all the nuanced detail of these processes and rules take many hours to read. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are published booksif that isn't relevant then I don't know what is. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to the actual wikipedia issues. Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being called for . The last post that was made before it was deleted seemed to sum things up quite well, its broadly the same opinion as I have formed myself: ===Comments after looking at the evidence=== - Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to CSN? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of WP:MEAT and a serious one - [[WP:SPA|Single purpose accounts]] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible [[WP:COI]] problem here - authors or those associated with them should ''not'' be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. br / - I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Video_blogdiff=nextoldid=106060604 here] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight [[WP:AGF|lack of AGF]] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Video_blogoldid=104826246] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faithbr / Mmeiser the vloggers, you should have [[WP:RFC|requested comment]] in order to build a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser should have taken [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] advice and [[Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages|created temporary page]] in their userspace. [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] has made a trojan effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides--[[User:Cailil|font color=grey size=2'''Cailil'''/font]] sup[[User_talk:Cailil|font color=grey'''talk'''/font]]/sup 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) - PS there was an edit conflict haven't seen Pdelongchamp's post yet--[[User:Cailil|font color=grey size=2'''Cailil'''/font]] sup[[User_talk:Cailil|font color=grey'''talk'''/font]] /sup 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I take particular note of their points about meatpuppets and conflicts of interest. Had everyone from the group steamed onto wikipedia and acted as some asked, this would have been a far more serious violation of wikipedia than any of the editing thats ever been done to the vlogging page by anybody. Anyway Im mostly interested in the articles, not people being punished, so lets hope everything can calm down now, the wikipedia
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
OK I mus stop posting here on this topic soon, but just to clarify how different the detail of wikipedia guidelines can be compared to the short version. The following is from the conflict of interest page I just linked to ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) , and I hope you will agree that it employs more common sense and balance about these matters than mine and others comments about wikipedia rules suggest: Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution when editing in that area. The definition of too close in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. Campaigning Activities regarded by insiders as simply getting the word out may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. Citing oneself You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia, probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of wikipedia, or lead to questions about conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Its also true that people arent supposed to go around accusing eachother of conflicts of interest, and so thats why its probably just best for potentialy biased parties to steer clear of topics that are too close to home, or at least to read and digest the above page very carefully. As usual with these things, the rules are not totally set in stone, there can be exceptions, but all the nuanced detail of these processes and rules take many hours to read. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are published booksif that isn't relevant then I don't know what is. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to the actual wikipedia issues. Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being called for . The last post that was made before it was deleted seemed to sum things up quite well, its broadly the same opinion as I have formed myself: ===Comments after looking at the evidence=== - Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to CSN? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of WP:MEAT and a serious one - [[WP:SPA|Single purpose accounts]] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible [[WP:COI]] problem here - authors or those associated with them should ''not'' be adding
