User talk:Factchk: Difference between revisions

ugg boots

Factchk, you're not getting it. The article Ugg boots is about ugg boots, not about one brand of them called UGG. This has been decided in a discussion closed on 3 March.

If you think that UGG boots are so notable among uggs that they warrant an article to themselves, then create one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hoary—the facts are what the facts are. So long as the posting contains incorrect facts, the issue is not resolved and the matter is not “closed.” Moreover, Wikipedia has requested this conversation continue. The posting has now been edited to correct misleading facts and to provide support for these changes. For example, it is customary for resources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries to state, up front, whether a term is proprietary. This is not a matter of opinion — the posting is now accurate where it was not, previously.

No, Wikipedia has not requested anything, whereas you (as the most recent of a series of special-purpose accounts) have unilaterally changed the article in order to reflect the facts as you see them, and in flagrant disregard of what's agreed by the majority in the talk page. If you disagree with the majority, then argue your point on the talk page and persuade people. If you think that the talk page is populated by the unthinking, then get fresh, unbiased input by launching another "RFC". But without agreement there, your further editing of the article to promote the "UGG" brand name will be taken as disruptive and will lead to a block. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

COI -- Ugg boots

Reading the current discussions on Talk:Ugg boots it appears that you have a connection outside of normal editing practices, I recommend you read WP:COI. Gnangarra 11:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I have reported your history of tendentious edit warring for review by an administrator at the link above. — e. ripley\^talk 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the posting at the link above and instead placed it at another venue that may be more appropriate, WP:ANI. Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Ugg boots. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots

Naturally where there are still unresolved questions we will continue talking, but where a question has been resolved by a consensus of editors (even if you disagree with that consensus personally), you have to stop reverting to the language that the consensus of editors has rejected. If you keep showing a pattern of re-inserting the rejected language against consensus, you're going to be blocked for disruption, plain and simple. That doesn't mean we can't continue to discuss other items of dispute on the talk page, or even this item of dispute, but you must accept that on this item (treatment in the lead), there is a consensus of editors who disagree with the version that you alone are seeking to insert. Why don't you try proposing different language? Perhaps the editors currently involved, myself included, would be more favorably disposed to some other proposal. But if you continue to try to re-insert the exact same rejected language (or a very close facsimile thereof), without securing a consensus of editors to support it, you'll be risking a block again. I would prefer that not be the case, but you should know that it's a real possibility if you do not moderate your editing style on this point. My most fervent desire would be that we arrive at a proposal everyone can be satisfied with. — e. ripley\^talk 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with the fact sheet itself per se, but I do have a problem with the way you're trying to use it to support what I think amounts to your own synthesis of facts presented to support a certain point of view. I wouldn't oppose a link to the fact sheet at the bottom of the page, for instance, as part of the external links. — e. ripley\^talk 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The way it's treated in the article now is how reliable secondary sources characterized the decision. Absent another secondary source that characterizes it another way, I see no reason to change it. Our job as Wikipedia editors isn't to determine the truth or falseness of information contained in reliable sources, only to summarize that information accurately. Of course where another reliable source has conflicting information, then we would summarize the conflict. But the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, presuming of course that the information in question is contained in a reliable source. — e. ripley\^talk 16:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A question about your editing practices

May I ask why you felt it necessary to create User:Erehwon37 and present yourself as a new uninvolved editor at the Ugg boots article? It makes me suspect whether you also are responsible for other single purpose accounts that have come and gone at Ugg boots, including User:Middlemarch2256. Do you also control User:Middlemarch2256 or any other accounts? — e. ripley\^talk 17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ripley, I didn’t create User:Erehwon37 and I am not Erehown37. We operate from the same location but I was not responsible for those edits. Also, I did not create and am not User:Middlemarch2256. The only Wikipedia account that I control is Factchk. As I think you know, I am concerned with the facts and back up everything I post with a reliable source. Please consider the facts, rather than attacking the messenger.--Factchk (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)