Something20130828

Question

If you think that Simona Williams are not notable then why is her article the first article you edit here on Wikipedia? Makes no sense.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it isn't the first article I edit here on Wikipedia ;-)
  - I just created a throw-away account, teasing the NSA :-) ... (and I'm a fan of Glenn Greenwald amongst others)
  But you're right in it seeming weird: There was, back in April-May 2013, a bit of a "controversy" about the affiliate (likely commercial) interests being involved in the edits to this article (in particular from user "Jjgoods"), and I did back then end up leaving the destiny of this article to Wikipedia Admin Bishonen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen), who subsequently apparently never moved the ball in any direction.
  The obvious thing to do on a "not notable" topic/subject, would be to delete the article. But in a scenario facing professional interests (e.g. by reputation managers) on the one side, and happy amateurs (e.g. wikipedia Admins) on the other, then: The right thing to do (i.e. deleting the article), is going to fly like a lead balloon. So: Adding one or more objective facts into the article is kind of the next best thing.
  Something20130828 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Simona Williams. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Try going back in time (article's history), and you'll find that consensus do exist.
E.g.:

• A version by user Pacx : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simona_Williams&oldid=516022671
• A version by user Discospinster : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simona_Williams&oldid=523442249

So ... As far as I can tell, then you're the one doing "disruptive editing".
If you have any care for the subject: Now is a good time to be constructive about it.
Though seeing that you're calling me "disruptive editing", ignoring the facts about the article's history, insinuating that some one-time IP-user (71.130.207.242) constitutes "concensus", then ... (I don't even know why I bother to write here)
Something20130828 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So far I have not seen you make any constructive editing user Something. You should mind throwing accusations around, it could backfire.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Establishing DoB, adding that information - is constructive editing in my eyes. (not to be confused with "disruptive editing", but I guess we'll just have to disagree on that)

"Backfire"? : Sounds like empty threats, aka bullshit. (go ahead, let me know if "backfire" covers more than just permanently banning a wikipedia account and an IP-address) Something20130828 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Threats? You obviously do not get it my friend, and consider your BS comment I would not be surprised if the banning part of your prophecy becomes true one day. But good luck with all of "this".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Previous account

• Hi, Something. Am I right in supposing you previously edited as User:Thomas Phuck? Whether or not, please note that Wikipedia is not in the business of hounding people, even if BT is. An interview where a journalist tries (without success) to force the subject to admit to admit to being ten years older than she has admitted to, on the evidence of a 1972-73 school photo of 19 children about 8 years of age, is not a reliable source. The child in the photo could be anybody. The picture is declared to have been sent to BT by a classmate (whose name is not mentioned, but he's obviously a delightful fellow). If you consider the subject non-notable, list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead of turning the article into a vehicle for attacking a living person. You don't know deletion's going to fly like a lead balloon when you haven't even tried. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen
Yeah, the "Thomas Phuck" account was banned for alleged/perceived violation of Wikipedia:Username policy ; (I also can't remember the password for that account, so not an option to use that account anyway).

There are at least two other sources, each w. different photos (yet both other & both different, taken when she was a teenager, also stating: name, age, year taken), but the article from BT is the only one that also state the exact date of the year (i.e. states DoB as 22.Oct.1964, instead of just saying 1964)
One of the two others (one being a commercial model photo, for which she got paid) can even be found in less than a minute (using google.dk, not google.com): http://multimedia.ekstrabladet.dk/archive/00671/No_name_671862m.jpg (that source is btw confirmed by Simone Levin herself at http://ekstrabladet.dk/flash/dkkendte/article1477517.ece ) ; Clearly: That source isn't a case of the person "in the photo could be anybody", and when "Simone Levin" was 16 years on 31.Dec.1980: then she's born in 1964.

Anyway: An article deletion is appropriate (as I also 3-4 months ago told you), and that I haven't initiated such - is partly because of the rule jungle of Wikipedia (and general user-un-friendly UIs), and partly due to my disapointment:
I did, in private, deliver solid evidence on user "Jjgoods" affiliation (and you did acknowledge it; I saw you commenting that "it checked out" on another Wikpedia Admin's talk-page or whatever-page). I then afterwards went so far as to provide you with a Google Account, initiating an exchange (in private) of information, sources & references on the topic.
Then: A week (give & take a couple of days) passed, nothing had happend - and I returned to Wikipedia to observe if or what had become of it all.
I would have hoped or expected to see some action taken on the party (or parties?) involved in obstructing the subject/article by their marketing/advertising/reputation/brand management involvement, but! I didn't find any hint on any such initiative having been taken, or underway. Instead! I found that ALL revisions made by user "Thomas Phuck" had "been removed from the public archives." ; Given that the content in the hidden/deleted revisions was in fact fairly benign, then: The only possible reason for such draconic meassures (removal of past article versions) is that I wasn't being "likeable", and NOT the actual content of any of the removed versions. (if you, being an Admin, got access to reading content of removed versions, then you can verify that claim on content for yourself. You'll find no calls for radical religious actions, or ... whatever may normally cause versions to be removed)
Bottom line: Wikipedia is (partly due to Google's unintentional/implicit support) a great propaganda tool (often or mostly for brand & reputation managers), and Wikipedia isn't sharp and outmost alert on commercial and/or professional lobbying enterprises infestation. (Note: Useless amateurs are easy to spot, since often violating [WP:peacock], and they aren't a threat.)
Well, I can't say I've had fun editing Wikipedia - but I can say that I've had an interesting 1'st hand educational experience.
Something20130828 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're disappointed. I went to some trouble to accommodate you, but when you wouldn't provide me with an e-mail address where I could reach you, I gave up. I still appreciate the information you gave me. On the other hand, User:Jjgoods's hasnt made any secret of their affiliation with the article subject. See this post on an admin's page. I've talked with Jjgoods by e-mail, which was easy (not like trying to talk with you), and kept an eye on their contributions, or rather, kept an eye out for contributions; there haven't been any since 19 May 2013. Perhaps she was discouraged by my e-mail, and/or by your campaign, around that time.

I agree the procedure for nominating an article for deletion on Wikipedia is absurdly thorny. I just nominated an image for deletion at Commons, and was awed by how easy that was; apparently there's no real need for the confusing, jargon-ridden, template-infested, multi-step procedure that Wikipedia has. :-( On the other hand, I see User:Aunva6 just nominated Simona Williams for deletion here, only to withdraw the nomination when User:BabbaQ requested it. You might be interested in this discussion on Aunva6's page. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

P.S. About the rule jungle and user-unfriendly UI wrt nominating for deletion, it's ridiculous. I've written an appeal on the Village Pump.[1] Bishonen | talk 20:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

Hi Bishoen,

Yeah - I know I was playing a little hard to get on the e-mail address issue, but put yourself in my shoes: I created an account, made some edits, and then immediately got hammered on them. Almost immediately followed by being fingered for edit-war, and on top of that: Wikipedia Admins jumped on me for the choice of username alone.

Well, a town where everyone seems eager to kill me, is not a town where I'm eager to let anyone know my address.

But I did provide you with an Google account, userid, password, link to login page - and there further instructions. Giving both of us the benefit of privacy & anonymity at the same time, had you gone for it. (OK, I would have been using my own Google account, so I would have had only partial annonymity for myself).

>>On the other hand, User:Jjgoods's hasnt made any secret of their affiliation with the article subject.<<

Ehh? Say again; Take a look at your own writing, from 29.April.2013 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomas_Phuck#..but_please_don.27t_edit_war

Where you say >>Moreover, I was a little startled to see your post on Talk:Simona Williams stating that you suspect another user of being motivated by an "affiliation" with the subject of the article, and claim that you have evidence to support that claim. ("Just ask if needed.") It's a serious accusation, which I hope you haven't made at random. Yes, evidence is certainly needed.<<

Now, find the messages & mails that I've sent you, and you'll realise that I might have been the one who found that piece of evidence for you. (which btw wasn't all that easy for me to dig up). In same mail/message, you also got another piece of evidence, telling you that JJGoods wasn't all that open to the entire world about herself & her motives.

Something20130828 (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't found her message to Discospinster in April, and you may well have pointed me to it at that time, but that's not how I found it yesterday, it was by looking at Jjgoods' contributions. The talkpage posts are so few it didn't take long to read them all. Mind you, I don't mean to say that you ought to have found them easily in that way, not at all. I know all about the user-unfriendly UI. But for an experienced wikipedian, "contribs" tends to be the first port of call. (Under "toolbox" in the lefthand sidebar on every user and usertalk page: "User contributions".) The stalking tool. ;-) I don't know why I didn't use it in April; laziness, probably, or other things to do. Anyway, after reading what Jjgoods wrote to Discospinster, I no longer think it a "serious accusation" to say she was affiliated with the subject; she was, but she wasn't hiding it. That makes all the difference. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing the "Toolbox" out! I've missed out on that! (grumble, why the heck isn't "Toolbox" in the horisontal top menu, with "Print/Export" as a submenu thereof, and while I'm at it: "Languages" needs to go up in horisontal top too, and ... nag, nag, nag ).

As to being "sneaky" or not, then: You gotta admit, that it looks suspicious how JJGoods constantly removed anything pointing to the age of Simone Levin, yet while having personal 1'st hand knowledge of Simone Levin's DoB. (you got the proof of that in a previous & private mail)

Something20130828 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thomas Phuck, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• TP was only username-blocked, so there was never a question of socking, and so the SPI clerk found. The blocking admin had even invited TP to create a new account. Bishonen | talk 08:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

I was not aware at the time. I did see the clerk's verdict though. sorry something. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the sockpuppetry investigation is non-sense: The "Thomas Phuck" user was permanently blocked for alleged/perceived violation of Wikipedia:Username policy.
The username "Something20130828" was specifically selected to not cause any problem w. Wikipedia:Username policy, but ... hmmm, maybe the digits 20130828 reads too close to a dirty word for anyone into numerology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology)
Something20130828 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That might have been nonsense but you still need to follow Wikipedia guidelines on how to behave and respect other users and their opinions. It really does not matter how much you want Williams article to be deleted, you still have to have true and strong reasoning for your opinion of deletion. I also have to question why you want this deletion so badly, as you seem heavily invested in Williams and her career. It seems contradictive that you spent time to edit an article that you want deleted. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BabbaQ

Please, while being on the subject of respect: Don't insult my intelligence.

You telling me that "you still have to have true and strong reasoning for your opinion of deletion" (?!?)

The strength of your "Keep" versus my "Delete" reasoning found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simona_Williams kind of speaks for itself, but let me comment anyway:

1. Your "Williams has appeared as a regular on ..." is factually & provable incorrect: She only appeared in season 1, i.e. not quite a "regular".

2. Your claim that the show is "the Danish version of The Real Housewives" isn't really correct either: "Danske Hollywoodfruer" is the Danish version of the Swedish "Svenska Hollywoodfruar". (Kirsten Prosser who, just like Simone Levin, too was on "Danske Hollywoodfruer", gives a very strong indication that "The Real Housewives" is not a station bought concept for "Danske Hollywoodfruer" at http://articles.dailypilot.com/2010-04-16/entertainment/dpt-prosser041710_1_botox-newport-beach-real-housewives. And although I'm certainly willing to speculate that TV3 may have taken inspiration from "The Real Housewives" in their development of "Danske Hollywoodfruer", then that alone does not make it a "danish version". Saying that it is, would be a bit like saying that only one quiz show was ever made, and that all other quiz shows are just versions thereof.)

3. Your claim that she "had roles in several Hollywood films" is true, but a half-truth. She has never played any lead roles, or major support roles. She's borderlining the category of stand-ins or extras.

On a personal note: One advice my father dispenced when I was a child, was: "Oh Lord, Help me to keep my big mouth shut until I know what the fuck I'm talking about."

I took the advice, but I also know that I can't force anyone else to do same.

I will however say this: Anyone being focused on how things are being said, instead of what is being said, focusing on form over matter - isn't going to garner any respect from me. (and that's the end of the line)

Something20130828 (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not get why you think I care about getting your respect or not to be honest. Because I dont. And by this last comment I can see that you have no interest in being seen as a serious user so I will treat you like you want to be treated. Like a child.. Cheers :)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)