User talk:Nilzy

Welcome!

Hello, Nilzy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DocteurCosmos (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's nice to have people stick up for me for a change :) . It's really only a certain few on that page that censor everything. Note that even criticism on the talk page is heavily controlled. Another heads-up: you may have heard rumours about Thrindel, and if you view his early history on his talk page, you'll see you what I mean. Just in case you're not aware, never so much as hint as to what you read there, on wikipedia, in regards to his supposed identity. Both him and Knowledgeum are pretty quick to pull out the old banhammers, and threaten everyone in the vicinity, as can be seen on Zel65 and Chain of Flowers talk pages. My best advice in dealing with him is: don't. Ignore everything he says to you. Don't get in an arguement with him. Anyway, thanks again, and good luck editing wikipedia, just remember, many editors are pretty helpful. It's just the ones on the B^U page offend easily.86.46.246.49 (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Violation

I've reverted your re-addition of the violation of BLP. There has never been any properly sourced evidence of this accusation, and unless some new proof has surfaced, a bunch of baseless slander on some forum somewhere does not constitute "properly sourced". It fits all of the criteria for immediate removal under WP:BLP, and has been said so by administrators on multiple occassions.--Thrindel^Talk 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page in question. Do not make demands of me to provide sources for other peoples arguements. Do not hide debate from others by conducting it on my talk page.Nilzy (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not demanding that you provide sources for other people's arguments, only asking that you refrain from restoring other people's unsourced accusations which violate WP:BLP. There have been no valid sources for the allegations. If you have some, then present them on the talk page and we can reach the consensus you're looking for. But the consensus has been reached in the past, and these are not allegations you can just throw around on Wikipedia without providing some solid sources for discussion. They are not the kind of allegations you make on Wikipedia and then just "wait" for people to verify them. You (or anyone else) are not offering any new evidence that requires this discussion on the talk page. There is no revert war here, the three-revert rule does not apply to removing libelous, unsourced accusations concerning a living person. If you don't have a seriously legitimate source to provide any credence to criminal allegations, they're going to be removed from the article and talk pages, because we're dealing with a living person here. And forums and blogs are nowhere near credible enough sources for this kind of thing. You can choose to believe whatever you wish on face value, but putting that information on Wikipedia requires a much higher standard of verifiability.--Thrindel^Talk 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add that Masem, an administrator, already upheld the reversion of this issue on the talk page. He is only the latest in a handful of administrators to do so.--Thrindel^Talk 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated, the WP:BLP expressly states: "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." . As I've also already stated, I am not condoning that this be added into the article, but rather that it is suitable, under the WP:BLP, for discussion and not for automatic removal from a party with what appears to me to be a vested interest in the article. You may not agree with the allegations made, that is perfectly fine as neither do I. You must debate this therefore, as stated in the WP:BLP, not simply remove it as if you have something to hide.

As I've also already stated, do not conduct your rationalizations for your reverts on my talk page.Nilzy (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add, quoting from the Wikipedia policy page on Administrators: "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." Having an Administrator agree with you on a topic is not an impenetrable shield to hide behind against debate on the topic, especially so when the debate centers around the inclusion of the article on the talk page.Nilzy (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a serious problem understanding BLP. BLP is intended to protect living people, amongst other things from unsourced allegations. This includes on talk pages. Per wikipedia policy, a forum is not a reliable source therefore any allegations which only appear in forums are unsourced. Until and unless better sources are brought to the table, unsourced allegations should not appear on wikipedia, not even on talk pages. Sometimes, it may be acceptable to bring some information to the talk page if it's not clear if the sourcing is adequate and this is fine but it's often best to remove the discussion if it's clear the sourcing is not. In this case, it's clear the sourcing is not. BTW, including biographical material that is not related to the subject of the article is also highly taboo per BLP. The article in question is about a webcomic not a biography on the author and therefore information about the author that is unrelated to the webcomic stays out. In conclusion, I urge you to reread BLP and ask for help if there are any parts you don't understand Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Thrindel^Talk 22:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not breached the BLP. I've stated this before. You have no power to block anyone, regardless of this fact. You have repeatedly removed my entries in the talk page and I grow tired of getting no better response from you than an offhand link to the BLP which I have already found to be in support of my actions.Nilzy (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Thrindel^Talk 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]