User talk:Faria

Welcome!

Hello Faria and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OWU

Spare me the self-righteous lectures, please. I gave my reasons in the edit summary, but if that was insufficient, let me point you to:

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda_machine:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1) Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

2Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other...

All the stuff you put was essentially propaganda -- and localized propaganda at that, presenting a limited slice of OWU life in purely "progressive political" terms, describing things of little or no interest to anyone outside of a bunch of student activists looking for validation or recruits. It would have been as if someone had inserted a bunch of stuff about Bible study clubs, Justice Sunday, and how a contingent of OWU students had joined a big anti-abortion march in Washington.

Was that clear enough, or are you going to keep up the wikilawyering? --Calton | Talk 21:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Faria, I did post my reason for removing the graph in the edit summary. Quite simply, it is not scientific because facebook does not involve everyone at the school and the graph does not involve even everyone on facebook (this is exactly what I posted in the edit summary). It is not neccessary to discuss every minor little change to an article before acting on it, so your comments are quite out of line. I have been here for awhile now and have had disagreements with some, but I have never experienced the kind of harassment that you seem intent on dishing out. I am starting to believe you may have some serious issues since you cannot seem to refrain from disruptive acts. Indrian 15:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Indrian: Most research work on various populations is done with surveys and subsamples and not the entire population. This, however, does not render it unscientific. I could provide you with some references to statistical literature which explains this if you want me to? Faria 06:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton

Hi Faria. Are you still having problems with Calton? He reverts[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] just to oppose or annoy or something. He also makes personal attacks/comment or otherwise uncivil remarks in edit summaries.[13],[14], and has deleted this entry in Wikiquette.[15] --AI 23:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it was some kind of misunderstanding between him and me. Faria 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- "I am sure it was some kind of misunderstanding between him and me." No. It was his misunderstanding of policy and wiki-ettiquite: Therefore, I call upon both of you for certification of an RfC for Calton regarding his excessive and unjustified reverting. (He has shown up to haunt the late Terri Schiavo -God rest her soul.

- PS: I don't act in revenge, but in prevention, the best medicine, and ounce of which is worth a pound of cure.

- Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, Florida, USA --GordonWatts 02:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Calton

Before you consider signing up for Gordon's little crusade, take a quick scroll through his contribution history (particularly his history on Terri Schiavo), his User Page, and his failed admin self-nomination (which died by a 29-4 margin (roughly) even with his own "support" vote). Bear in mind, also, that not only is he an ax-grinder, his axe is diametrically opposed to yours.

Gordon is, IMNSHO, a vigorously self-promoting right-wing nut, who's tried to take over the Terri Schiavo article to promote his views and himself. Tread carefully, is my advice. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Even if I made serious mistakes (and that is not a certainty: I some significant made human errors in judgement, not intentional, it appears) --nonetheless, were I to be "guilty," still two wrongs (mine and Calton's) don't make a right: I think that Calton is afraid to admit when he's wrong: Yes, look at all 3.5 thousand edits I've made here in the wiki -if you have the curiosity and time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 02:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two links better sum up Gordon:

Enjoy. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Translation!?

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

Albania built its first railroad in 1947, and 40 years later Tiranë was linked to all other major industrial centres in the country. The highway network has been extended even to remote mountain villages. Air transport, however, remains largely underdeveloped. There is no scheduled domestic air service.

--Armour 10:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One final attempt at reconcilliation

I have been posting on wikipedia for a fair amount of time now. During this tenure, I have had my share of disputes over policy and content with other users, and certainly I have seen people make decisions that I cannot fathom (just as many can legitimately say the same things about me), but I have never experienced the harassment, abuse, and outright lying I have been subjected to from you. I am really quite perplexed where this personal rancor comes from, as it has been my experience that most editors are able to stick to arguements about what is good for the encyclopedia without degenerating into baseless rants about other users. Sure, we all engage in heated exchanges from time to time and say things we regret (such is human nature), but that is different from engaging in a pattern of abusive behavior.

You know nothing about me. The fact that you claim to be able to tell everything about me from a few posts on wikipedia is insulting and narrow minded. Judging from yuor comments related to me, I am sure you will be surprised to learn that I am a liberal who has never voted Republican in his life, believes in gay rights and the right for individuals to chose whether to use contraceptives or have an abortion, and thinks the current American foreign policy is ruinous, that the fundamental Christian right in America is dangerous, and that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed. You may just dismiss all of that as a lie if you are too set in your preconceived prejudices about me, and if that is the case, then there is not much more I can say to convince you.

I really do not want to engage in an RFC or similar procedure. My policy on wikipedia has always been to live and let live. You are the first user that I ever considered bringing such an action against, and I only began to do so after repeated and unfounded attacks on my character that grossly violate wikipedia policy. My policy on wikipedia has always been to charge in, state my case, and if I encounter a large amount of opposition, move on. That is how wikipedia works, through consensus. Without differening viewpoints and spirited debate, wikipedia would not grow in a thoughtful manner. I certainly find nothing wrong with you disagreeing with my interpretations of wikipedia policy, and I will argue policy all day in an attempt to sway others to my position and/or reach a compromise, but this is far different from going around accusing others of engaging in vast conspiracies based on (imagined) personal views and being bigoted towards individual groups.

This brings me to the point of this message. I bear you no personal emnity and hold no prejudices against you. I recognize most of your positions as being properly founded in wikipedia policy which you are interpreting in a largely rational manner. I disagree with how the OWU article should be maintained, but this is entirely based on issues of accuracy, verifiability, reliability, referencing, NPOV, and my concepts of what is "encyclopedic" under WP:NOT. I fully understand that these views, while certainly not exclusive to me, may not be your views, or even the views of the majority of users on wikipedia. However, I base my views purely on neutral policy matters and not some outside agenda against you, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, homophobic individuals, or any other group that you can think of. Certainly, we are all influenced in our views by our beliefs, but I am not and never have been homophobic (heck one of my roommates and good friends my senior year of college is gay), and even if I actually do posess this attribute subconciously, I have never engaged in any pattern of activity on wikipedia that reflects a homophoic nature, and to continue to say otherwise is to defame my character without a sound basis to back it up (I know you think that a single edit I made to the OWU article somehow constitutes a pattern of homophobia, but I have illustrated how each of the pieces I deleted were removed pursuant to my interpretation of policy and were not the only pieces I removed in the course of a large cleanup of the article; heck, I have no problem with the "gay-friendly" statement in the article now that it has been properly referenced). I write to you now as one last attempt to reconcile our differences before I look into an RFC or other measure. What I would like from you is an apology for your personal attacks against me, particularly your references to homophobia and a conspiracy to push a particular viewpoint on wikipedia, and a promise that you will no longer perpetuate such attacks against me again anywhere on wikipedia or elsewhere. Now you are still free to disagree with me, argue with me, revert my edits in the OWU article, etc., just please do not go to every last topic I post about OWU issues and start accusing me of homophobia and attempted censorship. These are the remedies I want to ask for in arbitration, and are non-negotiable. I am certainly interested to hear your side of this story and your feeling on this matter as well, and if you want a concession or two from me, I will certainly undertake them if I find them reasonable. If you refuse to cease your defamation and misrepresentations, however, I will have no choice but to go forward with judicial action.

Perhaps because of the impersonal nature of internet communication you do not realize how hurtful your harassment is to others, but the damage is there. I have no problem with people occasionally losing their cool a little during a heated debate (I am certainly guilty of that), but your pattern of spreading lies about me to other users in public forums goes beyond the occasional lapse and has become instead a malicious campaign against me for no other reason that I made some edits you did not like leading you to begin fabricating reasons for my actions. Please feel free to respond on my talk page. I hope we can reach an amicable settlement. Indrian 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the comments the two of you made in the OWU FAC. Faria, I personally think your response was over the top. His response was questionable too, but I do believe your original post comes close to violating WP:CIVILITY. I am not familiar with the history the two of you have, but as an indepenedent observer, I think Indrian has legit concerns. I share them, the section in question is loaded with POV. I encourage the two of you to work out your problems here---not on the FAC.Balloonman 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have been active in wikipedia since I posted the above, I assume you have decided to ignore it. This most likely means one of two things: either you do not believe I am serious and see no need to respond, or you are resolved to just plain ignore me. The latter would be a continuation of your rude behavior in this matter, but at the same time, I am not adverse to live and let live myself. I have looked into the rules for an RFC and noticed that evidence is required of two people getting involved on a single side. Since this has been primarily between you and me, this criteria has not been met. I am loathe to draw another person into this mess and risk exposing said person to the same abuse I have received, but will do so if absolutely necessary. Therefore, I have decided to even forego asking for an apology if you no longer go around accusing me of homophobia and furthering right wing conspiracies on wikipedia. As of this moment, I consider the matter closed between us. If you ever again libel me on wikipedia, I will find a second person and/or take whatever other steps are necessary to see that further defamation on your part is followed by consequences. I wish you happy editing and hope this is the last time I have to refer to any of this unpleasant business. Indrian 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:HerbertHooveratOWU.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HerbertHooveratOWU.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]