This page is specifically for my work as an Advocate.
user:Kruse56 edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/October_2006/Kruse56
Plese comment here:
1. I wanted two statements added to the David Ortiz article under a new topic "Controversy." Several other big name athletes have a "Controversy" subtext on their page. David Ortiz, at one point in 2004 and 2006 respectively, threw bats in the direction of an umpire and spoke of how he should be the MVP and not Derek Jeter. As I am a baseball historian, I found that this was important to discuss on his page. However, a bunch of Red Sox fans (I am one myself), whether together or not, found that the info was inimporant to share. They had this based on 3 reasons. It was not NOTABLE, CITED, and Im not sure if the 3rd was it was BIASED. First, many suspensions are noted on people's pages, I eventually cited it, and it is a fact and therefore, cannot be biased. I found many other similar bits of information, that are FAR less important than these two pieces were on many other athletes' Wikis. In addition, I decided to go to two of the most controversial NYY player sites and found many biased comments and chose not to delete them, because I am sure every move I make will be deleted anyway. My desired outcome: Fairness and Neutrality with the addition of both of these items of information. I was, however, willing to accept the addition of only Papi's suspension and not his quote, although responding to Stoneice02's line that said "we cant include people's interviews on Wiki", there are other players that I have looked at that have personal quotes and media quotes on his page. They have in common being big time athletes who get tons of media attention, similar to Ortiz.
2. I will be gone until Friday, if that is enough cooling down. You tell me how long to wait, please?
3. We will absolutely take it slow and easy. I do have two young sons who, against my permission, continue to do stupid things on the Wikis, and I tell them that it hurts my case, but i have to remember they are children. The idea for a poll I disagree with, if that's okay, because all Sox and RSN fans will come to the defense of Ortiz, negating any neutrality.
Thank you for your help Kruse56 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in getting back to you...Can you write below the specific langugage (with a verifiable source (newspaper article, for example) to support your statements? If so, I'd like to read it, comment to be sure we can say it is a factual statement and NPOV. Then I'd suggest posting it on the talk page for comment...if there is not objection, post it. If there is objection and it is not reasonable, then we can take next steps. OK?DPetersontalk 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
user:Stoneice02 edit
DPeterson, thanks for taking this case on. Although I think it was premature to call you in, it'll be nice to get some closure to this issue. I am unfamiliar with the advocacy process but I would like to be heard. I have also put a call for comment re: WP:ATTACK by user:Kruse56; I'm not sure if that can be taken care of as well in this case. Again, thanks for your help in advance. Stoneice02 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Tmore3 edit
DPeterson,
Thanks for first of all for taking on my case. I sought advocacy really on behalf of many others who have disputed one administrator's lone actions in zealously removing station logos from television station entries. His main arguement is that the images violate Wikipedia's fair-use protocal and cites as his reason for removing inconsisitently the painstaking work of others is that the station logos did not contain enough "prose" to warrant fair use. This user apparently has needlessley disenchanted a wide span of wikipedian community members in either his sincere paranoia television stations will sue without fair warning for wikipedia's non-commercial use of station logos. Which can be found at other websites and no evidence exists of prevous legal actions taken on this issue. Or this user seems to be abusing his power and making up dictums from higher ups (Jimbo) that he has been personally charged with taking the actions he has.
I feel that at the very least a compromise is within reach for these community members but is my personal belief that a discussion or formal review is worth calling for this user as he has failed to proivide a convincing arguement of this immediete threat posed by teleivision news station on the use of small non-=animated graphic images used in a non-commercial format.
Here incidentally is a link to one of the discussion threads that has grown in response to the actions taken by this administrator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_4#Removal_of_logo_galleries