User talk:Beinghuman900

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Beinghuman900! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –xeno (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Coursework[edit]

Strangely, this news has not reached me, and I find it hard to believe. If students cannot understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and the sources it relies upon (and which, of course, they should be checking and using for their own work), then it could be said that they are too stupid or lazy and deserve to fail. Do you have a link for this change of policy? --Rodhullandemu 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they do have a time frame, so takes too long to check all the sources and some students trust Wikipedia blind. Some struggle in their work and so like to use a website where they think all the information is there for them. Also encyclopedias give facts, with this one being the only exception and instead relies on sources. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So where have the government announced this surprising policy? --Rodhullandemu 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554362/GSCE-coursework-scrapped-to-stop-cheating.html (Beinghuman900 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So basically, they've returned to the situation which pertained when I went to school over forty years ago. Forgive me if I don't think there's much wrong with that; I work sometimes as a writer, and my work is always checked for plagiarism of text on the internet. If I'm found to have copied somebody else's work, not only do I not get paid, but I also lose agency contracts. Why should school pupils have it any easier? --Rodhullandemu 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but some students suffer from severe exam nerves and so their whole future can be ruined. And the students aren't copying it, they are using it as a source and getting incorrect information and referencing to it in their work. The markers see it is wrong information and wonder where they got this information from. They see they got it from Wikipedia and think they were copying, but actually they were just accidentally using incorrect information. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That webpage says that they scrapped it because students copied (or were helped) so it's still the same situation. You can't blame a website or another if students aren't taught how to research in the first place. -- Mentifisto 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, students are getting incorrect information for here and examiners think they've been copying because it can't have come from anywhere else, when actually they were just referencing incorrect information, but it is misinterpreted as cheating. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Students wouldn't just take information and examiners think they are copying not knowing where from because it could be from any website and could've been easily correct. In most cases I'm sure students just blatantly copy-and-paste (literally sometimes, I'm sure) information which could easily be detected as even a copyright violation (since you need to mention the GFDL if you re-release information from WP). So, honestly, it's all the students' fault (and the teachers' who can't even get their facts right). -- Mentifisto 17:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has such a bad reputation now, that it is the first place examiners look. They see the incorrect information there and can't find it anywhere else. Secondly, i am not worried about those who cheat by copy and paste, rather those who use this website as a source. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

But as many pointed out encyclopedias weren't made to be used as sources. They use sources not the other way round. And if examiners try to find copied materials manually (since you said that this is the first place they look at) then no wonder students don't even know the difference, or how to research at all (because manually searching for copied information is inefficient... to say the least). -- Mentifisto 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but students don't have the time to check all the sources which have a limited of information on, unlike Wikipedia which has most of the information on. Another point is that some poor students may see a bit of incorrect information, by somebody who is vandalizing the page and use it before it is removed. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Then maybe the students need to be taught how to use WP and possibly check the entries so they'd see at least whether there was any recent vandalism or not and whether it looks like everything's normal. Honestly, the situation isn't as bad as you think. Most vandalism is obvious and reverted quickly, and most other editors have checks on pages so if they think something is factually incorrect they'd fix it, or it's updated like what's done usually. It's not like you can tell your students to get their material from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition since it's outdated and old-fashioned nowadays. And even the last published Brittanica will have inaccuracies because it's so slow to get published. -- Mentifisto 17:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the situations obviously bad enough for coursework to be stopped. Some vandalism is actually very subtle and clever vandals source it to a webpage that has correct information on, but not the edit they have made. The administrator sees they have sourced it and don't read through it all and see what they've actually put isn't there. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And as I said an administrator isn't required to check it. Anyone can check it, even you. As I also said mostly in those cases people who take a particular interest in the article (which is a lot usually if it's popular - you don't think Jesus has much vandalism (except blatant)?) check the sources and remove them, or anyone else who's casually reading the article either pointing it out on the talk page or actually acting boldly and removing the reference themselves. I'm sure that if the coursework was specifically stopped because of WP (which isn't, since no one specified that) it's due to the FUD that teachers spread full of propaganda with no basis in actual reality after they've just seen WP for the first time. -- Mentifisto 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coursework wasn't specifically stopped because of Wikipedia, but it was certainly a contributing factor for the reasons i have given above. Also not many people study sources to check if they are correct. And Wikipedia's bad reputation is certainly based on some degree of truth and it is the goverment's decision to remove coursework not the teachers. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is a partial repost of from Jimbo's talk page. The newspaper article you provided as evidence on your talk page does not mention Wikipedia anywhere, and anyway the point made in it was that the internet was making it too easy to cheat, not that the information was wrong. If you still think Wikipedia is at fault I'll happily discuss this with you, but I suggest you do a little more reading (and thinking) before throwing accusations around. Hadrian89 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my reasons for why i think Wikipedia is at fault and i can't be bothered to repeat them. Just read through this talk page or Jimbo Wales talk page and my answer to your question is there. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've read through all your comments. Sure you've given your reasons as to why you think Wikipedia is at fault. Just a pity that you haven't shown that the problems you perceive (vandalism and misinformation) have anything to do with the government's decision. Go on, show me a source. If you can't, stop making melodramatic claims on Jimbo's talk page. Hadrian89 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no websites are mentioned in the article, but they certainly aren't cheating out of a library book. I have given my reasons as to why i think Wikipedia is partly, but not wholly, at fault and i want user:jimbo wales to relpy. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Pure speculation. How do you know they are not cheating out of a library book? And what about all the other websites - are you sending angry messages to the head of Sparknotes?
In your last message, you suggest that cheating is the problem, whereas in previous messages you suggest that pupils doing genuine research suffer from misinformation suffer. Which is it?
Are you aware that the coursework being pulled makes up for no more than 25% of the total grade? Are you aware that there are plenty of special dispensations for those who suffer in exams (extra time being one)?
He may reply - that is his choice - but it would be a waste of time because you seem to have presented absolutely no case from which he might need to defend himself.
Hadrian89 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because people going to libraries has fallen drastically in the last few years. Cheating is the problem, but students who just simply read the wrong information are getting dragged in. 25% can also mean the difference between a pass and a fail. I am also aware of extra time, but this is generally only another twenty minutes to half an hour, but i may be wrong on that count. To your last comment i would reply, that nobody has given a good enough reason as to why he shouldn't reply. I have successfully countered all your arguments and so far and it getting rather tedious. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Jimbo Wales is extremely busy. Would you expect a personal reply from Larry Page, Bill Gates or Gordon Brown? Cheating is the problem. The problem is with lazy students, not with information. Simarly, they are being lazy if they don't verify what they read. The problem isn't the resource, just the way people utilise them. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he. How would you know? Are you his personal assistant? To answer your question, if they left me a tool that i could leave messages on, i would expect them to reply, yes. I don't really mind how long he takes, i'm just getting rather annoyed i keeping on having to repeat my self. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am not his personal system nor an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. Rather, I am a member of the Wikipedia community. We all try to help anyone who has queries about Wikipedia. I fail to see why you require Jimbo Wales to answer your queries, when the vast majority of the Wikipedia community can. He is under no obligation to reply to you. Computerjoe's talk 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobodies under any obligation to do anything. I require Jimbo Wales to answer, as this is his website and this is a question about his website. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, this is not his website. See WP:OFAQ#WHO. Computerjoe's talk 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he is the creator, and set down the policy of anyone can edit, so this question is directed to him. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Offtopic (slightly) but is this an edit you made? Is that the same kind of misinformation you're talking about? Students can't get correct information because of edits like that one, then? -- Mentifisto 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ BH900's 19:04 post: 'successfully countered all your arguments so far'? Well, that's nonsense... 'getting rather tedious'; Yes, I know the feeling. I'm not going to answer your points individually because I think it will be more productive to restate and counter your main argument - ten minutes or twenty for extra time et al are details.

You have now stated that children cheating using Wikipedia is a significant factor in the British government's decision to withdraw coursework (misinformation is, according to you, an unfortunate but lesser effect of Wikipedia so I won't deal with it now). However, you have not given any evidence that the government thought Wikipedia was any more or any less of a problem than any other website: the spokesman merely cited 'the internet' as a factor. Indeed, I would suggest (though this is my own speculation) that other sites, which are targeted specifically at secondary school students - like, for example, Sparknotes - cause more of a problem in terms of cheating.

Even if we were to assume your speculation correct - that the government did single out Wikipedia as a cause - would it be Wikipedia's fault? No, of course not. It is the fault of the children who cheat. To take your argument to the next step, we should ban pupils going to libraries or using the internet at all - no reading, no cheating! Hadrian89 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just had another look at the discussion on Jimbo's talk page and my eye landed on your statement 'Wikipedia has gained such a terrible reputation that i believe it is one of the main reasons why coursework has been stopped in the UK' (my emphasis). Well, that's the crux of the problem: it's your own personal belief, based on absolutely no evidence. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.techspot.com/news/28000-wikipedia-banned-in-schools.html. Wikipedia is one of the top ten visited websites, so of course its more of a problem then Sparknotes. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There's that fuzzy logic again: it's in the top ten visited overall; children researching coursework do not account for the entire population of the internet, you know. Plus the link you provided me with described schools in the US banning Wikipedia. Show me the link between Wikipedia and the British government's decision. Hadrian89 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1961862.lecturer_bans_students_from_using_google_and_wikipedia/ You may not know how the British government works, but just to let you know they aren't the naming and shaming type. You just have to look at the concrete evidence thats around you. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Concrete!? NONE of this is concrete. You can't just march up to the proprietor of a website and make very severe claims (ruining children's futures) based on your own speculation from joining up disparate dots and supported by a flurry of quarter-relevant news articles.

So stop giving me articles that don't prove your point: the last one was dealing with university students, and mentioned Google as just as much of a problem (contacting them, are you? maybe we should shut down that site too...). And here's something from the article: "It is down to institutions to prevent this from happening." Got that? If students are misusing the internet, their school should tell them to stop.

And I doubt that you have any greater insight into the workings of our government than anyone else (though with your shamelessly specious arguments and attempts to twist the evidence, you would get on quite well as a politician). If Wikipedia was a major factor, they would have no good reason not to mention it. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you put together four 'quarter relevant news articles' then they make a whole. And several schools have advised students to stop using Wikipedia, just because they don't want to splash across the internet doesn't mean they haven't. I will also take the snide remark about being a politician as a compliment and i wish you well in your job as defender of Wikipedia and voicebox of Jimbo Wales. Furthermore if you type a query into Google, one of the top results is a Wikipedia page and that is what student are clicking on. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I'll try and wrap things up here because I don't think we're getting very far. Voicebox of Jimbo? As stated before, I have no objection to him replying, I just don't think he will. I'm speaking as a user and editor of Wikipedia. I would be the first to admit that it has many problems, vandalism and inaccurate information being some of them; but the claims you are making are unfounded and defamatory, and that is why I am being vocal in refuting them. Let me restate my opposition to your arguments (although your arguments have changed significantly over the course of the debate, which makes me think you never really thought through your claims).

You say that Wikipedia was a substantial factor in the government's decision, yet you provide no evidence, just your own speculations along with assertions that these are concrete evidence. (Incidentally, if you really care about this, put in a FOI request to see the reasoning of the department in question - this is the relevant government help page.)

You also suggest that Wikipedia ought to take responsibility for the decision that was taken, even though it is surely the fault of the pupils who copy from Wikipedia (against the instructions of their school). By your reasoning, if I wrote a book about the enzymes in potatoes, and a GCSE student copied from it for their Biology coursework, causing my book to be banned by his school, you would send me an angry letter asking how dare I provide information which might be plagiarised, and ignore the student who actually committed the offence.

In short, you have no case; if you were to try and take Wikipedia to court as culpable for a child getting a C instead of a B, the judge would throw it out in an instant. You can't construct coherent arguments and you have employed fuzzy logic throughout. And no, four quarter-relevant articles don't necessarily make a whole, because they were not quarters of the same whole: they just make a lot of barely relevant articles.

Last of all, let me offer a sincere piece of advice: if you want to go about making an official complaint, leaving a message on Jimbo's talk page - which is intended for informal discussion and which he is not obliged to reply to - is not the way to go about it. Get a group of concerned citizens, write a proper letter and send it in. OK? Hadrian89 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a more impressive cumulation of the partial relevance of these articles would be to multiply their usefulness together, giving 1/256 revelavence to the argument. But I digress...
To be honest, I am not that many years out of school, and I remember the time pressures of GCSE coursework, AS-Levels, and so on. I also remember that one of the assessment objectives of our curricula (and having looked again recently, this is still the case) is to assess a student's ability to think critically and/or evaluate the sources used for their research. I remember student's at my school ignoring this, and copying text almost verbatim from books, the internet, etc and getting poor marks because they assumed that these (often inaccurate) sources where right - they failed the assessment criterion of critical thinking and source assessment because they only bothered looking at one source. The argument of time pressures never stacks up - teachers invariably arrange extensions if a student is truly struggling under workload.
One final thing: at the same time as these colleagues of mine at school were doing what students today are still doing (on the internet without Wikipedia (gasp)), the Government and various groups were already starting to worry about coursework and seriously discussing its removal. This is simply the result of those discussions: that's how slowly government works sometimes - it isn't always an instant reaction to the latest phenomenon, as your suggestion that this is a Wikipedia-driven decision seems to suggest is your belief. Best wishes in your studies Fritzpoll (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you attempting to wrap this debate up, because you have no more futile arguments to give. Once again students aren't copying Wikipedia, they are simply referencing information that is sometimes wrong. Oh and by the way this was meant to be an informal debate, your just getting very angry. Please calm down! Also students don't look just at one source, they look at several, one of them being Wikipedia, where they are getting wrong information from. Also if students are assuming incorrect sources are wrong, then how can Wikipedia know that the sources are correct. Surely i can make a website about some rubbish, write the same information on a Wikipedia and link it to my own webpage and it will probably stay on there for a long time. So the whole students should look at the sources of Wikipedia thing is a load of rubbish. Lastly in reply to Fritzpoll, might have been discussing the stopping of coursework, before Wikipedia was created, but Wikipedia has pushed them over the edge. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am not angry, though my patience is certainly wearing thin. If I had been angry I would not have offered you help and advice.
Let me quote you: "Once again students aren't copying Wikipedia, they are simply referencing information that is sometimes wrong."
Let me quote an earlier post from you: "Cheating is the problem, but students who just simply read the wrong information are getting dragged in."
So students are simultaneously plagiarising and not plagiarising Wikipedia, and misinformation is simultaneously the main problem and not the main problem. You contradict yourself. BH900, you are not making any sense. I am wrapping up the debate because I refuse to argue with people who lack the capacity for rational argument. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware that students aren't all exactly the same. Some are cheating yes, but as i have mentioned several times earlier some students, not all, are simply referencing wrong information. Some students plagiarize Wikipedia, others simply use it as a reference point. You say i lack the capacity for rational argument. Well i can't have a rational argument with somebody who thinks every single students are exactly the same. Also saying your going to wrap it up, is another way of saying, 'you win, i will not annoy you with my petty arguments anymore.' (Beinghuman900 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And yet you were the one who made the blanket statement "students aren't copying Wikipedia" (you didn't qualify by saying 'some students', which is what I was picking up on). Anyway, before we go any further, can I ask a question? Are you just a troll? If so, then you have done a very good job indeed, sucking me into this interminable debate, and you have truly earned your lulz. Obviously you're not meant to admit to it, but seeing as I'm going to quit posting here anyway, it makes no difference. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how desperate we have become, we've sunk to name calling. I haven't sucked you into this debate, i didn't want to talk to you, i wanted to talk to User: Jimbo Wales, so you sucked yourself in. Stop trying to gain the moral high ground. Also when i make a statement about students i am clever enough (unlike you) to know that not all students do exactly the same thing. Are you a troll? I think you are, as you seem to like answering questions that aren't directed towards you and done quite well in sucking me into a interminable debate. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It wasn't name calling, it was a genuine question. The 'sucking in' thing was only meant to apply if you were a troll, so if you are not, then there is no accusation. Anyway, that's all from me, I hope Jimbo gives you an answer. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well bye then. Nice talking to you and no hard feelings and i'll hope you accept defeat like a man. You also haven't answered my question. Are you a troll? (Beinghuman900 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No: I joined the debate with the intention of changing your mind, not winding you up. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you failed quite spectacularly. Maybe next time you shouldn't attempt to answer questions that aren't directed towards you. Judging by your last few posts, you have admitted defeat and so finally i don't have to listen to a load of Wikipedia editors, making feeble arguments to defend this website. I have been outnumbered, but i have successfully countered you all and now i'm just waiting for a response from the top dog Jimbo Wales. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I realise I failed there. By the way, other editors answering questions directed at Jimbo Wales often satisfies the person posing the question, and is standard policy. Obviously this is not the case with you, but this is an exception. I have admitted defeat insofar as I think further posts trying to counter your claims will be unproductive, not because I think my position was untenable. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i know that editors can try and answer a question, but when i kept on specifically asking for a reply from Jimbo Wales, they (especially you) kept on coming in with their own contributions. The reason why you have admitted defeat is because you are wrong. Simple. I would just like to finish by saying well done for defender Wikipedia so ferociously, but it seems you will have to admit defeat. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If Wikipedia is so poor and inaccurate perhaps you could make good faith edits to improve it, instead of wasting your time here. Heck, just a silly idea! Computerjoe's talk 17:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So somebody else has picked up the baton. I have specified many times that the majority of Wikipedia's articles are correct, but my problem is they are too easy to edit to give false, or more often bias information. Why don't you try read through people's comments more carefully, before you make a reply. Heck, just a silly idea. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Some answers, and a polite request to desist.[edit]

First up, please try and bear in mind everyone here is a volunteer (and that includes Jimbo Wales). We aim to create this work through a collegial atmosphere of cooperation and consensus building. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and we don't win or lose arguments.

  • because you have no more futile arguments to give.
  • Are you a troll? I think you are
  • i don't have to listen to a load of Wikipedia editors, making feeble arguments to defend this website
  • have been outnumbered, but i have successfully countered you all
  • The reason why you have admitted defeat is because you are wrong
  • Why don't you try read through people's comments more carefully, before you make a reply.

Lack of capitalisation of the first person pronoun yours
Let me be blunt - an overly agressive attitude and tone does not "win arguments" here. You're dealing with a very clever, very motivated and very capable bunch of people who are used to dealing with all kinds of complaints - and generally are happy to listen, learn and help if you give them a chance. From the word go you have not wished to listen to reason or respect our policies and guidelines. I will make it very clear that you do not have any right to edit this website, and as an administrator I can - and will - remove your editing privileges if you carry on in this argumentative fashion without contributing anything of value to the enyclopedia. You have been asked, repeatedly, to substantiate claims you have made that you have not been able to do so. You have been told, repeatedly, that any user is allowed to respond in good faith to comments you have made, irrespective of on whose talk page you made them. If you don't like Wikipedia, and don't like (or, frankly understand) what the aims of the project are then I have a suggestion - ignore it and stop editing here. I'm sorry to be blunt. Criticism of Wikipedia is valuable and welcome, but lashing out with ad hominum attacks will lead to a block. Reasoned discussion will help you get the answers you need and can even lead to policy changes if we are making mistakes - but you're unlikely to be taken seriously making the types of comments I note above.
As a final note, one would hope you note the irony that you have made assertions (specifically that Wikipedia is to blame for the removal of much GCSE course-work) without a reliable source to back up your claims - and that you have been pulled up on it and shown lacking demonstrates quite how good editors can be on insisting on verifiable information both on user talk as well as the main article space.Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, thank you for your post here, and apologies to all for losing my cool several times in the course of the debate: I probably should have bowed out much earlier than I did. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think Beinghuman900 has a value to add on Wikipedia, but has gone the wrong way about it. I can understand your frustration Hadrian89, particularly when faced with some quite dismissive and, well, rude, comments - however I also think that the above debate has achieved nothing other than irritating everyone. I'd urge Beinghuman to consider what his aim here is and how he can personaly can help the issue rather than simply engage in meta-discussion. This is a wiki, and if something is broken it can be fixed. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been on here for quite a while, because i probably thought it was best for everybody to calm down a bit and I'm sorry for any unintentional trouble i caused you and I know i said some things in the heat of the moment. However some of your arguments to prove i was being rude, are frankly quite pathetic. My comment about the troll, was just because that user had asked me the same question, before. I was also very annoyed people were asking me the same questions as another user had done before. Also your comment about me dealing with 'very clever, very motivated and very capable bunch of people' sounds just a tad, and I'm sorry to say this, arrogant. Also you claimed i was aggressive, but User:Hadrian89 kept on talking to me, not vice versa. He was also the one, using big bold writing, that demonstrates an angry nature. You also say my editing rights might be taken away, because I have an argumentative fashion. Well it seems you have forgotten the golden rule of arguing. It takes two. Should you be blocked for the same reasons. Also, when journalist asks questions to someone, does he want everybody chipping in with their own opinion. It seems that you are over sensitive and can't take any criticism of Wikipedia. Furthermore, you're complaining about a reliable source, means nothing, as in the newspaper no websites were named, but students certainly aren't getting incorrect information just by the start page. There has been a lot of criticism of Wikipedia and many schools are against students using it, even if they don't want to put it on the internet. Schools have a different way of communicating with their students. It is obvious that the British Government has taken this into account and maybe you have to learn that the internet isn't the be all and end all of all knowledge. In fact only 10% of the world's knowledge is on the internet. My aim is to have a chat with Jimbo Wales, about how his Wiki is to easy to edit and then i shall get down to some proper editing. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

why can't you just leave it alone you just keep coming back to spark an argument! i feel as if you consistantly attack wikipedia staff who are just trying to help!--Spingoo (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you Wikipedians can't resist. I'm not arguing with them, i just wanted to talk to User: Jimbo Wales, but people kept on chipping in. I'm not constantly attacking them, they're constantly attacking me and now you seems to join them with your laughably weak arguments. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

you go about the matter so childishly have you no common sense? why dont you listen next time to what we have to say?! it could be of use to you if you give it half a chance!--Spingoo (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I know what capitals are. I have given you all a chance and thought about your arguments carefully, but nothing will sway me in my view Wikipedia is too easy to edit, to give false and more often bias information. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I laugh at your petty comment it shows when you can't think of anything else to say! and wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit! --Spingoo (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you have mastered the art of the capitals. You don't seem to have an argument, you just seem to want to come in with your own piece. I am fully aware that Wikipedia is a place anyone can edit, but that is exactly my problem. Surely it should become more harder to edit? (Beinghuman900 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If wikipedia was harder to edit you wouldn't be here wasting my impotant time! In that sentence you just destroyed your whole point in starting the argument! --Spingoo (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your 'impotant' time. In that sentence you just destroyed any suspicions i had that your just a ten year old. You seem more like a five year old. Judging by your laughable edits on the George Orwell page, you are one of the vandals I'm talking about, who gives bias information, it just lucky you're not clever enough in the way you go about it. if they made Wikipedia harder to edit like i want, then no I wouldn't be speaking to you and wasting your 'impotant' time, because you wouldn't be allowed on. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What edits are you talking about? It makes me laugh that once again you got your facts wrong. I believe that you are the biased one here as you only bring across your veiws and refuse to listen to other opinions! that is whats called biased look it up... that is if you know what dictionary is! "You seem more like a five year old."--Spingoo (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Hadrian89 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Orwell&diff=270503285&oldid=269751442 Here it is. You seem to have forgotten you wrote it. Please do not make any childish claims about me being bias. The information is just here. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Non-encyclopedic entries made in GF and not pretending to present objective facts do not constitute bias.

Warnings[edit]

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

February 2009[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking another editor. How? I am trying to make a point about how easy it is to edit Wikipedia and his piece on George Orwell's page proved my point. It is common place for Wikipedians to help each other make better and a lot lesser bias edits and that is all i was trying to do. So if you wouldn't mind, please could you remove that warning. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And I think it's about time you realised that if Jimbo wants to discuss with you, he will. Otherwise, he won't. He's very busy. Meanwhile, after two days here, I see no constructive edits from you to any article, which is the whole point of Wikipedia. I invite you to read this and consider your position here; if any. --Rodhullandemu 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been very rude to many editors so this warning will stay in place. Continue and you will be blocked. Computerjoe's talk 19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Computerjoe's talk 19:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give one example of how I've been rude. i just wanted to talk to User:Jimbo Wales and if I have been rude to any other user, its because they all wanted their say and I didn't see the point of it. I am also quite sure that Mr Wales can spare a bit of his time to reply, but I don't mind too much if he doesn't. I just wanted his esteemed opinion. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You say I've made rude comments to other editors. Well maybe they shouldn't go on my talk page, if they are so offended by my opinion. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent personal attacks; trolling; WP:SPA, no edits to articles. this is the last straw. Please take the time to read about how we work here, then return, if you like, without the attitude, and with some clue.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Beinghuman900 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I listened to your last warning and didn't make another disruptive comment. In fact, i just took your advice and dropped the stick. The reasons why I haven't been able to make valuable edits, is because I've been so caught up in this debate. if Jimmy Wales is a busy man and can't respond to my reasonable question, which is perfectly understandable, can't I also be a busy man and so can't both have a debate and make valuable edits. I believe once this debate has been resolved, I will become a valuable member of this society

Decline reason:

I see no legitimate reason to unblock. You are obviously running a single purpose account meant for trolling and disruption (well-meaning or otherwise). I would take a 31 hour block as somewhat of a gift, had I made the block it would have been longer. Trusilver 21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Beinghuman900 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Give me one example of me being rude or disruptive after my final warning at 19:48 and I will quite happily serve the rest of my ban. if you can't find one, can I please be unblocked and this whole matter can be put to rest. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no legitimate reason to unblock, either. This is a single purpose account whose sole purpose has been to stir up shit and nonsense, and to troll and disrupt. You have no article edits, and quite frankly, if this continues after your block expires, I'll be more than happy to indef this account. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would suggest dropping these appeals. Your block expires tomorrow morning :) Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of I, claudius 'A touch of murder'[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article I, claudius 'A touch of murder', suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unremarkable or unmentioned movie/film

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Beinghuman900. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to help a bit[edit]

Hi there,

I noticed that your article I, claudius 'A touch of murder' was nominated for deletion - called a PROD. I saw the cooments by ESanchez013 and thought it was a bit harsh, so I wanted to help out.

After checking the article, I've removed the PROD because I think that it is notable enough, and with a bit of work could become a good article.

Anyone can remove a PROD if they think the article is OK, or if they've improved it. Another user can put it forward as an 'article for deletion', and then it's discussed and an agreement is reached as to whether the article should be deleted or not.

You asked about how to link to other articles - it's very easy. You just enclose a word in 2 square brackets, like this 

[[sausages]]

which results in this; sausages. You can also link a different word, which can be useful - for example, if I wanted the word Eastwood to link to the article titled Eastwood, Nottinghamshire I would do this 

[[Eastwood, Nottinghamshire|Eastwood]]

which would result in this; Eastwood
I hope this helps; if you need any other help, just put 

{{helpme}}

on this page, and someone will respond.

Cheers, good luck with the editing,

--  Chzz  ►  20:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of I, claudius 'A touch of murder'[edit]

I have nominated I, claudius 'A touch of murder', an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I, claudius 'A touch of murder'. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rodhullandemu 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've moved your comment to the discussion here --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

afd[edit]

Hello again,

Great to see that you've done some work improving the article.

Don't worry about the afd - keep working on it, and I'm sure the afd will go away.

I will try to help when I can.

I've just added an infobox; you could add more to it if possible. See WP:MOSTV for information on what can/should go in the infobox, and lots of other info about how to make a good TV episode article.

Cheers,

--  Chzz  ►  23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page[edit]

Please don't move your talk page to another user's name, unless you change your name. Feel free to archive your talk page, by moving it to User talk:Beinghuman900/Archive, but don't leave this page as a redirect. Computerjoe's talk 16:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pranav Soneji[edit]

A tag has been placed on Pranav Soneji requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. andy (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pranav Soneji[edit]

A tag has been placed on Pranav Soneji requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing. OK, you used a different account to recreate the article last time, but I'm watching you. This really is a last warning. andy (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Your edits are disruptive, you appear to make few, if any, substantive edits to the encyclopedia. After no edits for nine months, you return with the apparent intention of just vandalizing a few articles. I'm going to show a little good faith here and NOT block you indefinitely on the condition that this behavior was simply a spat of poor judgment... Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Trusilver 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. ‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beinghuman900&oldid=1089943871"