Hi Darren,
On 3/26/06, Darren Ray darrenkray@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that I am not Benjamin Cass and I am not Alexander Chan. After on and off editing anonymously, I have edited as DarrenRay and as no one else. That's the point.
No one has accused you of being Ben Cass or Alexander Chan. However, I must note that you have used the term "anonymously" to mean "editing under a logged-in user account", so I have to disregard your comment about "on and off editing anonymously" unless you clarify. But that's really a matter for the arbitration case, not this list.
I won't comment on David Gerard other than to see there is an issue with his impartiality.
You won't comment, other than to make vague, unsubstantiated allegations of bias? How very generous! :)
Discredit an auditor? 1) Dean McVeigh isn't an auditor, 2) I encourage people to read the McVeigh article, it is a sourced and valid article.
Sorry, I must have been drunk, tired, or both when I wrote that. I meant liquidator.
I've also read www.makemcveighpay.blogspot.com, which is far more entertaining [for the others on this list, a blog by Ben Cass]. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sourced and valid". Is it balanced? Is it NPOV? Is it impartial? Has it been subjected to a peer review? Have the parts written by yourself or Ben Cass been substantially changed by uninterested third parties?
Clean my name? My name is perfectly clean, I merely wanted some balance and integrity in the article discussing controversial issues.
That explains why you removed the phrase "Optima property deal" from the paragraph describing the deal you signed which served as the trigger for the liquidation of the union. Ok.
The property deal I signed is not really the point. The point is how the encyclopedia article should deal with it, considering the fact that it actually cost the union nothing as it did not proceed.
Well, to be quite frank, the only person I've ever heard express that particular view point is you. Various newspaper articles see things slightly differently. Sort of brings us back to [[WP:V]], doesn't it.
The issue with returning officers is no more than the appointment of supposedly politically aligned returning officers is meant to be a big deal in one case but ought not be mentioned in another. Forgive me for pointing out this inconsistency.
That particular example is fairly weak. There are two fairly major differences: - In one case, a company run by a recent previous president was chosen as returning officer, a fact which was controversial and the subject of some publicity. - In the other, someone simply with political affiliations was allegedly chosen, and all I've heard about it has come from you.
I repeat, since registering as DarrenRay I have not edited as anyone else, have had no sockpuppets etc. Prior to that, like you I edited anonymously.
You've only had an account for the last 30 days. When you say that I edit(ed?) anonymously, what do you mean? I edit almost exclusively under my user name, and certainly don't use anonymity to make controversial changes to articles. You seem to be using the term "anonymously" to mean the opposite of what most Wikipedians do.
Your POV pushing is not propaganda of course. In the Melbourne University
If you're accusing me pushing a point of view, then you should be able to identify what point of view that is. But I'm not sure why we're talking about me.
related articles, I think we had largely reached a compromise anyway. You
For the benefit of the audience, I strongly reject any suggestion that any "compromise" has been reached. I stopped work on that article due to three things: - sustained edit warring between several parties - inability to reach agreement on basic points - the request for arbitration
It seemed best to wait for the outcome of those things before continuing any work. A "compromise" (or "consensus", as 2006BC put it) is far from the truth.
are clearly involved in the Student Union in some way, and are editing articles about it. That's an issue for you to think about.
What makes you think I'm involved in MUSU? I will, however, think about it, if you like.
All I want is truth and balance. Perfectly consistent with Wikipedia's rules.
Wikipedia wants people to contribute civilly to build an encyclopaedia to spread accurate, unbiased knowledge to people who otherwise would not have access to a high quality encyclopaedia. The notion of "truth" is explicitly disclaimed by [[WP:V]].
Your pattern of editing leads me to suggest that your primary goals in editing Wikipedia are not to help build an encyclopaedia. Which isn't to say that your contributions could not be valuable, but I don't believe your primary motivation is particularly philanthropic.
So when the guy is accused of killing President Kennedy falsely, they should not edit it out. I think that's a real issue to be considered here.
Read [[WP:AUTO]]. There have been many discussions about editing articles about yourself. Feel free to start one. The short answer is, no, it's best not to edit the material yourself, but rather, to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and ask them to edit it for you.
I have been personally courteous to all I have dealt with, even in the face of personal abuse from users like Ambi, Garglebutt etc.
There is far more to WP:CIVIL than courtesy. As you probably know.
Steve