The arrogance of Wikipedia (where I am not answered satisfactorily, and User: Freakofnurture appears to freak out and maliciously ban me constantly just because of one harmless typo in which I accidentally called him/her "Freakofnature" (from the Daniel Brandt talk page):
I reverted back to a 4th November version of the page because it is the most fair and NPOV way of presenting the article. I'll let the guy behind the page explain:
Jucifer, I *did* discuss my edits and my reasons for them on here, but there's been no further discussion of them from you.
I fail to understand why you felt it necessary to remove every single improvement I made. You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps. Evidently you prefer the spin.
I give up. As long as people like you are going to hover over this page day after day and remove any constructive changes made by others, there's no point. I can't keep hovering over this page myself, though, because I have a life. Nor do I have time to waste arguing about what constitutes coherent writing with someone who can't even spell the word "coherent".
And what gives you the audacity to not only remove every single change I made, but then request that no one else remove YOUR changes without discussion?? I begin to see now why Brandt and others are blanking the page out entirely.
While there is little to add to this, I should point out that articles such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan articles, despite the fact that the subjects have significant hate proportions, the fact remains that this doesn't stop the articles from being NPOV and not offending them. Why? Because these guys have had no conflict with Wikipedia. Therefore, Brandt gets demonised in the existing article, whereas the proposed revert to 4th November is a great deal more neutral, and if the thing is not gonna be deleted, the least that can happen is that he is painted in a fair light.
Italic text Where can you find arguments for why that version of the article should be in place? Why, I would presume that seeing as how back in November this guy was discussing his edits with Jucifer, I think its obvious where the answers are: with Jucifer. Italic text
Hi, Jonathan here. I think the difference between the revisions is that the existing article on Brandt does appear to have several negative connotations about it. Too much gets made of Brandt in the existing criticism section. The suggested version of the article is NOT biased, for as the guy originally behind it points out:
"You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."
I agree that the Brandt article can no longer be in a state of deletion, because he's a notable persona. However, the least Wikipedia could do is to enter into some sort of compromise with Brandt. Create a version of the article that pleases both camps. I do believe he said he would be satisfied with a Stub on himself at least. While the suggested version is not a stub, it's at least not as intruding onto his privacy than the current article.
AND FINALLY, THE ONE FOR WHICH FREAKOFNURTURE HAS MERCILESSLY BULLIED ME ABOUT.
Okay, so Brandt has been involved quite a lot with this article, as the archives do tell us. And he has had a tendency to point out that information published about him is either inaccurate or incompetent. In response his views are often criticised, but he does have a valid point. You see, if I was to suddenly achieve fame for being a Wikipedia user or a famous Wikipedia critic, I would make DAMN SURE that the person who was writing the article was someone I either knew or was able to trust, or hell, I would write it myself.
Let us take, for example, Jimmy Wales. The same principle applies here. I'm going to be willing to bet that the article was not written by Mr Wales for the purpose of NPOV, but was written by someone that he knew he could trust.
In Brandt's case though, I do believe his article was originally written by one SlimVirgin, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has been nothing but critical of Brandt. Isn't it rather odd that despite the fact that people such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan have significant hate directed toward them, the connotations of hate towards them are not nearly as addressed as much as in the present article. Hell, even other Wikipedia critics don't get as much negativity as Brandt. His only "crime" it appears is to have set up a website opposing Wikipedia practices.
What are the advantages of this proposed version of this article? Why, I do believe that's already been covered:
"the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."
Plus, Brandt has previously expressed the desire that if there is to be a Wikipedia article on him, it should be restricted to the status of being a stub article. Obviously deletion is impossible because Brandt is a notable persona, but what this proposed version of the article is something that can help to achieve a compromise between both camps, a more simplified version of the article that both Brandt and Wikipedia can be satisfied with. Just keep the current versions of Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch as they are, and of course the reference to Brandt in Criticisms of Wikipedia, and voila! All the basic necessary information on Brandt that you need. Everyone's happy.
Of course, you know, disputes like these could easily be resolved if Wikipedia were to be a reliable source of information. But it's not. The key distinguishing feature of Wikipedia is that it does not have any moderators. While other websites are able to provide accurate information due to the fact that they are strictly moderated, Wikipedia is crippled by the fact that it has no moderators. As a result, exchanges such as when Brandt made an edit labelling pieces of information to be "utterly incompetent". Someone then reverted this by saying "no it isn't" Excuse me? Just who is more likely to hold accurate information in this regard? The man to whom the subject is about, or someone who clearly has something against Brandt?
Finally, seeing as how my previous account was suspended because I was allegedly acting as a sockpuppet or impersonator of Brandt. There were several problems wth this theory:
One: Not once had I ever met Daniel Brandt, nor have I ever had any email correspondence or similar with the forementioned person. Sheesh, it's not so abnormal or unusual that someone can generate support for their cause - even the British National Party gain votes.
Two: Unless I am into to extreme extensive travelling, it should be noted that the IPs that Brandt and myself use are very much different, so therefore any theories that I was the same person as Brandt were invalid.
Three: There didn't appear to be any "evidence" to support the assertion that I was what was being claimed, otherwise the "evidence" part of "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Daniel Brandt. Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence." would have been filled in. Therefore, it was an unfair ban.
Four: From the very beginning, it appeared that Curps must have had some political, social, or absurdly personal agenda against myself to warrant that even now, he has never given a proper reason to revert my edits more than three times, and yet he was not banned for breaching the 3RR rule, thus showing bias on Wikipedia's part.
Five: I already tried to explain that I was not the same person who gained notoriety for randomly proclaiming "WikiFascists!" and repeatedly blanking the page, and yet Curps seemingly has no idea on the concept of "diffentiation" as he appears to enjoy lampooning both myself and the forementioned vandal as being one and the same.
Thank you for your time.
Jonathan 7 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Why should I be unblocked? Because Freakofnurture failed to follow a rule about the process of revert in which you should at least give your reasons as to why you have reverted the edits of the user on either the article's or the user's talk page. Also, Freakofnurture kept restricting my rights to speak and coldbloodedly calling me a sockpuppet even though the above shows I am not so. I feel this was a grossly unfair treatment upon myself.
Plus, trolls don't have any concept of spelling or grammer, and their actions are unjustified ergo - not troll. Jonathan 7 14:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're not blocked, nor were you ever. --
Rory09601:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
==Dear Freakofnurture==,
Please unblock me, for I have finally had enough of the fact that you appear to have something very serious against me, as well as the fact that you appear to lack any reading comprehension. I have told you time and time again that I am not a sockpuppet, and I have explained the nature of my actions. I am pissed off, and I therefore wish to take it up with the higher authority Jimmy Wales on his user talk page. I have more than enough evidence to show that you have abused your admin powers and have had a vendetta against me ever since I made an edit you happened to disagree with on the Daniel Brandt article. You on the other hand have no evidence of any abusive conduct I have had towards you or Curps, and you simply answer only in WikiSpeak, where you use the same old "rv" and "sockpuppet used abusively" which masks the fact that you are incapable of arguing your case.
I wish to chat to Jimmy Wales, and thus request unblock. Jonathan 7 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)