User talk:Andevere

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your comments[edit]

To be blunt, you seem to know just enough to be dangerous. You know a few buzzwords and some other comments but clearly have minimal understanding of relevant US law or how WikiMedia operates. For example, check-user data would be unhelpful in obtaining any more information since the IP in question appears to be somewhat dynamic. Since the IP address in question is exposed all that would be relevant would be whether the ISP can trace who it was. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation has a longstanding policy of giving check-user information when it is requested by law enforcement agents. Most of your comments read like trollish legal-threats and it appears that you have only gained an account here to pontificate or be disruptive. I suggest you stop. JoshuaZ 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


You're bluntness reveals a lack of sharpness. Checkuser could reveal what other articles were edited from that IP. Coupled with information gleaned from a court-ordered search of the IP records, investigators just might have a smoking gun. You bet I'm dangerous -- dangerous to criminal conspirators.
Accusing critics of pontification and disruption is standard bullying, endorsed from the highest levels of Wikipedia, including by one of two founders who remains active in the project. I suggest you, JoshuaZ, shut up before you find yourself guilty of intimidating a witness and interfering with a murder investigation. Andevere 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
How to say this nicely... Your annoying me. Please respect other contributors, and don't say stuff like: "shut up before you find yourself guilty of intimidating a witness and interfering with a murder investigation" especially when you don't really know what you're talking about. Bawolff BawolffUser:Bawolff/Sandbox 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't even feign niceness. You spew hatred. Your annoyance originates in your own conscience, and your inability to attribute to yourself agency for your own reactions reveals your lack of qualification as a non-fiction writer, not to mention what it says about your psychological profile to thinking people in this world . Andevere 01:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Cquote1.svg Accusing critics of pontification and disruption is standard bullying, endorsed and modeled by leaders at the highest levels of Wikipedia, including by one of two founders who remains active in the project. I suggest you, JoshuaZ, shut up before you find yourself guilty of intimidating a witness and interfering with a murder investigation. Andevere 01:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Cquote2.svg

That first of all is incorrect. Wikinews has only one founder, his name is Erik (user:Eloquence) and he is not active except for a couple edits . (wikipedia has a different founder then us). Second, You are about to get blocked here, so if you want to keep being able to write stuff here, take you own advice and as you put it shut-up. Bawolff BawolffUser:Bawolff/Sandbox 01:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is yet another (failed) project of the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation is the heir apparent to a project created by the porn-merchant Bomis, Inc. Your attempt to obfuscate that fact, and refusal to acknowledge basic facts of media ownership reveals your lack of journalistic ethics.
Secondly, you can't even block your own drool from running down your chin, and you certainly won't stop us from responding to the open invitation to edit these pages. Your attacks against users concerned about potential criminal information stored in Foundation servers reveals the hateful posture of the foundation toward most effective critics.
Thirdly, you and your fellow intellectually feeble wikipedia club members always but always lose in these things -- JS, EssJay, Congressional Quarterly, etc. -- and your attacks against those of us who remind you of the distance between wikipedia and reality serve mostly to persuade the watching world media just how weak are your arguments against our participation. Go ahead, whine on. "Block" yet another account. It won't make one whit of difference. We spend hours on the phone with news organizations, offering our free service not to the Foundation or to its projects, but rather to those who will protect the world from Wikipedia and the criminals who sometimes use it.
Further, the wikinews block of the collaboration page associated with the so-called news article about this matter exposes Wikimedia Foundation as not a user-generated shared knowledge base, but instead as a Soviet-style propaganda machine that censors comments that make the leadership or some internal faction nervous. Why don't you tie yourself in a knot trying to explain to yourself why a cogent account such as this need to be censored from the user comment section of any legitimate news service, and why the user-comment section needs to be disabled to prevent users from discussiing criminal culpability in among contributors to a supposedly charitable foundation? Andevere 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No ones hiding the fact wikipedia was originally a project of a porn company. (really why does it matter? they gave wikipedia money and time. they didn't turn it into pornopedia). Any ways, here is the bottom line— We can block you if we want, if you don't like the way we're doing things, you are free to leave/fork/do it yourself however you see fit. Bawolff BawolffBawolff/Sandbox 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You can't block anybody. To block me, you would need a court order, and when you get the first order betraying your promise of privacy and contrary to the alleged spirit of openness, we win not just the battle but the war. And it's not the porn money that started wikipedia I accuse you of hiding. I correctly confronted you for denying that the Bomis owner was one of the founders of Wikipedia and of the foundation that now owns both Wikipedia and Wikinews. Play your O'Reilly hate-show games all you want. All you can do is close accounts, which never succeeds in your purpose of squelching criticism, attacking critics and shaping internal discussions to hide major criticism. All you have is a video game and your strategy is apparently driven by the immediate excitation of your nervous system, not by considered, rational, civil colllaborative intent. Andevere 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That you describe your own edits as "cogent" is pretty funny, though. I had a good laugh. I don't want to be accused of an ad hominem attack, but have you ever considered that you might, just might, be full of yourself? --SVTCobra 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
We take an anonymouse person who goes by the pen name "Cobra" on a supposed news service very, very seriously, and we consider their insults to be intelligent replies. Andevere 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No more than I take an anonymous entity that uses the Royal "we" (or is that the editorial "we") seriously, I trust. I mean, where would we be if we didn't take eachother seriously? --SVTCobra 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Andevere, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!–Doldrums(talk) 02:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

pls contribute constructively to Wikinews. we are not here to debate current affairs, argue or issue legal threats to one another. we are here to write news articles. be courteous to others and pls don't make legal threats. either can result in you being blocked from editing.


Discussing the obligations of journalists under the law is not a legal threat; it is responsible journalism. Andevere 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
you are welcome to discuss these obligations with a view to improving Wikinews reporting. better yet, you are welcome to edit articles to take care of your concerns, keeping in mind Wikinews polices and guidelines as well as the journalistic guidelines Wikinews strives to achieve.
comments such as "Wikipedia might be the scene of a murder investigation. You are obligated to cooperate with investigators, or face the consequences." and "any Wikipedia administrator who from this point forward oversites (removes from public view or from the database) any information associated with this investigation might become an accomplice to an accessory after the fact." mislead readers as well as potentially inhibit the free editing of pages necessary for Wikinews to function. if at all you want inform readers and editors of such legal issues, at the very least, make an effort to be accurate.
do note that if WN administrators conclude that your discussions are disrupting article writing here rather than contributing to better writing, they can and will block you from editing. –Doldrums(talk) 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


So just to be sure I understand, I woke up this morning, and CNN said Wikipedia is a subject in a murder investigation. They said Wikinews reported that Wikipedia is a subject in a murder investigation. I visit Wikinews and find that Wikinews says Wikipedia is the subject in a murder investigation. But if I say that Wikipedia is the subject of a murder investigation, I am "disrupting article writing here rather than contributing to better writing"? As I have explained elsewhere, it is the obligation of a news organization to indepentently explore how policies of a parent company might have effected events when the parent company is the subject of a news story. You aren't interested in the vast amount I can contribute to better news writing. You are interested in protecting your ideological camp, which is an abhorant interest in a news room. Andevere 06:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No. wrong. WP is NOT a subject of any investigation nor is Wikinews. WE performed the investigation and those news agencies reported on those investigations. I published the first article on the edits and have been watching CNN and FOX News for the past 2 days solid and not a single time did any of them say that WN or WP was being investigated. Please read those article talk pages because as I see it, you are not understanding what has happened or what we did. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Cquote1.svg You can't block anybody. To block me, you would need a court order, and when you get the first order betraying your promise of privacy and contrary to the alleged spirit of openness, we win not just the battle but the war. Cquote2.svg

Administrators can, and will block you if you do not begin to edit constructivley. You seem to be annoying and harrasing other editors. We are asking you as nicely as we can. Please stop harrasing other editors. Thank you for understanding. Thunderhead 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You better heat the warning, my friend. We don't need a court order to block you. Asher Heimermann|Talk 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Comments[edit]

The "Collaboration" tab at the top of every article is intended for helping other editors and discussing with other editors on how to make the article better. The opinions tab was more suited for your comments. We are trying to be as cooperative as possible in this, but you are not helping us resolve this matter peacefully. Please don't make this harder than it needs to be. Thunderhead 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As a second note, I will ignore the comments you posted about me. I know that several other contributors here would be happy to provide a good word for me. Finally, posting comments about other respected contributors may not be taken so lightly, and they may feel the need to block you. Thunderhead 06:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your threat is an ugly stain on this project.
Please don't make this harder than it needs to be. I am trying to be as cooperative as possible in this, but you are not helping to resolve this matter peacefully. You have accused me of breaching the peace. You order me to behave according to your personal subjective expecations, yet assert to have ignored my effort to reason -- the very comments to which you respond. You are not sort of journalist if you respond to statements before you read them. After reading my statement, you should demonstrate to me and to neutral observers an understanding of my reasoning, and a respect for me as a person whose ideas might differ from yours.

In short, I posted where I did because my intent was collaboration. The collaboration page is similar to the edit desk where a particular story is being discussed, before or after publication. My contribution in no way thwarted any other discussion. You have no room for the ideas I introduced, so you are attempting to kill me off rather than expand the consensus to respect my valid and coherent reasoning. You are breaching the peace. You are the one saying go away. You are the one refusing to confront those who attack my contribution as "babble." Examine the log in your own eye before you concern yourself with the speck in my eye. Andevere 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are borderline personal attacks Andevere. Please read WN:NOT. We are here to make news and make news better. We are not a "theater of war" and attempts to start an argument will not be tolerated. Do not attack contributers because of your personal opinions. I ask you to read over all the talk pages of the articles regarding Benoit and understand the investigation we performed on this. Please do not make accusation to anyone. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your threats and slurs, Drag, do not convey any information about any particular allegation. Exactly what comment is a "borderline" personal attack, and against whom? I am well aware that it is the widespread practice in this club to block anyone who does not enter with the attitude that Wikimedia Foundation projects are not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Unless you cite some particular -- recent -- comment, posted well after the numerous "borderline" personal attacks and outright insults posted about me, you can block all you want and it will suit our purposes to the letter. All it will be is evidence of the immaturity of this project and it's participants, posted in a location I have arranged in such a way that numerous news rooms are looking over our shoulder. Your refusal to acknowledge the substance of my concerns seals the case beyond any reasonable doubt. Andevere
Cquote1.svg All it will be is evidence of the immaturity of this project Cquote2.svg

poo. Bawolff 06:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What, if anything, does your scatological text contribute to news production? Andevere 06:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


More threats from an admin attempting to censor discussion of news organizations' responsibilities when reporting stories about a parent company[edit]

Again, you are attempting to start your own little flame war here with comments that are untrue and unfounded. If you continue to harass, attack, or make any accusation against anymore contributers, without merit, you will be blocked, You have been asked countless times to assume good faith and to cooperate, and yet you continue hostility. I am not going to argue with you. If you have a problem with someone personally, then you discuss it with them, and in the proper forum, which is not here. This is your final warning. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that responsive to my question about how, if at all, scatological remarks contribute to newswriting? Or what?
""You're own little..."? Is that how your mommy and daddy scolded you, Drag? Please cite the comments you claim are inappropriate and explain exactly how they meet your definition of "attack" or "harrass". Don't characterize; explain. Use your better writing skills, if you have any. Maybe your buddies are interested in your opinion, but the rest of us work in the real world of facts. My explanations are cogent, civil and reasoned. You falsely accuse me of harassment, when I am responding to an open invitation for comments. In short, you are waging a campaign of hatred in an effort to avoid responding to my comments. Go ahead, continue attacking me. CNN needs to see exactly how Wikimedia Foundation operates. Andevere 06:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for threats, failure to follow WN:NOT, flame wars, and creating a "theater of war". If you wish to appeal this decision, please use {{unblock}}. Thanks for your cooperation. Thunderhead 06:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours.

Your example of calling users names is a personal attack. You continuing to intentionally incite a flame war is enough to block you. Your threats and your comments suggest you have absolutely no clue as to what is going on with the investigation wikinews performed. The only things being investigated are the anonymous user's edits, on Wikipedia, which were turned over to the police and the FBI before any article appeared anywhere on any site. We agreed that we will participate in any questions the police have and agreed to turn over records, if requested. We are cooperating with the police, and thus that means there is no investigation against Wikinews or Wikipedia.

So I advise you to read the articles, their edits, and talk pages very carefully before you comment any further. If you continue to do harass, badger, attack, make accusations, threaten or anything else that is demeaning to any user, your block will be extended. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{unblock}} if you want to be unblocked before this period is up. Thunderhead 06:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee[edit]

If you have a problem with users, you can bring your case before ARBCOM, the highest elected authority within Wikinews. If you want to, you can ask to be unblocked for the sole purpose of arguing your case. Thunderhead 06:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee won't accept this case until the other stages of dispute resolution have occurred. MR 06:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

what they do at Wikitruth.info[edit]

... is that you are not even allowed to edit a page unless you are some kind of member, which is what all your fishing sounds like to me. How *cough* disrespectful, to be an atmosphere so unopen to editting whatever that place was. -Edbrown05 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)