This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Preface: This isn't directly related to the editing of the Justin Berry article. However, it is the kind of background that I'm viewing this article in comparison to when trying to determine whether it is NPOV.
Justin Berry's full-hour segment on Oprah from February ran again today. It was the same sotry of complete victimization that Berry has told the New York Times' Kurt Eichenwald & the testimony he gave to Congress. Objectively, Oprah's intent was to tell this story, but she did so uncritically. Berry appeared "despite death threats" & at the risk of losing a six-figure book deal. Subjectively, Berry reads as someone who is constructing a story. He pauses to think, verbally hesitates, and appears to choose his words carefully. He doesn't shy away from talking about these matters, but instead smiles occasionally & treats this subject seemingly as a matter-of-fact. Again, this is my subjective read of his appearance. If I were talking to Berry in person, I wouldn't accept what he said at face value. Interviewing subjects & detecting deception & inconsistency is part of what I do for a living, so I have some measure with which to gauge his behavior by.
That said, actually seeing Berry on Oprah convinced me that Berry, while indeed a victim, was also part of a criminal enterprise. He was compromised at an early age by people who can best be described as amoral hedonists. The men Berry performed for gained his confidence with emotionally seductive conversation and gradually lowered his inhibitions. They created a pedophile's dream in Justin Berry. While that explains & mitgates Berry's actions, I still feel it is wrong to ignore his role. Based on facts given on Oprah & in other sources, his monthly income from this business would most likely have exceeded $10,000 and could have reached as high as $70,000, based on the number of subscribers and the range of monthly fees that have been discussed. He received funds throughout his teen years, and I find it incredible to think that the realization never struck him that this is not a normal, healthy way to live his life. Leaving the sexual component aside, any enterprise that must be conducted in secret, whose income must be hidden from everyone, parents & government included, and the consequences of which forced flight to another country, isn't likely to be a legal line of work. My view is that some time between 13 & 19, Justin Berry reached a point where he was conscious of what he was doing, and made a conscious choice to continue on the same path. No situation features entirely pure heroes or entirely evil villains, and this is no exception. It's a facet of our media culture to reduce things to good vs evil, regardless of the nuances or gray areas. So, blame the adults who seduced him, but don't absolve Justin Berry of all responsibility for his own situation.-- Ssbohio 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't edit war your revisions out, I just wanted to let you know why I did what I did. -- Hbdragon88 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.
First, I would actually appreciate it more if you'd actually talk to me on my talk page rather than making rather snide comments such as "And yet he persists, without consensus" on your talk page, which isn't assuming good faith. It seems that we're headed into another conflict over the ampersands, and once again I'd like to bring the issue to your talk page.
To begin with, "consensus" is not "your opinion." You have been reverting my edits; nobody else has reverted the edits, and nobody has started any talk page discussion on the talk page declaring support for either your or my opinions on how the page should look. I wouldn't revert your edits and call it "consensus" because you clearly disagree with me; likewise, I take strong offense when you revert my edits and call it "breaking consensus" when no consensus has been established.
Additionally, the Manual of Style is not "policy" as the TOP OF THE MOS states. You seem to cling hard to the idea that MOS is a bible, even going so far as to state that "Talk:Ampersand carries no policy weight" when the MOS itself isn't policy. It is a style guide, and as the top of the page says, it should be applied "with a certain degree of elasticity." Just because it isn't explicitly stated in the MOS doesn't mean that the change should be reverted on sight.
Third, as the Ampersand page itself states, the ampersand has fallen out of usage and has generlaly been replaced by the word "and." The ampersand is also a special HTML character and causes problems when put into direct text [1]. This is not the MOS, but since Wikipedia is silent, and because the state that the rules should be applied loosely, I choose the "accessibiilty and technical" solution and rational. Therefore, for the ampersand conflict, all ampersands should either be converted into & or be changed into "and". For the sake of simplicity and readability I would suggest the latter, and I come directly to your talk page in the hopes of building "consensus."
That is all. Hbdragon88 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried everything I can think of to make this footnote [1] work in the Justin Berry article [1], but it won't show up correctly [1] in the references section [1]. It works here, but not there. I don't get it. I'm guessing I'm missing something obvious.
Steve, I read your comment on my discussion page regarding the Justin Berry article. I have been pretty occupied with other things lately. I might go to Gourlay's trial hearings if possible. Though, I think the article has more than enough information on Justin Berry and other related incidents.-- Dan Asad 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a former wikipedian who left in spring after having my fill of userbox deletionists, the userbox wheel war, and the ridiculous WP:OFFICE. I might be coming back, but I'm not ready to sign back in just yet. However, I could not resist thanking you for two things:
Nick -- 130.127.121.188 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you contact the Foundation about it. David.Monniaux 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note re: the Justin Berry article. I actually found the article precisely because I was looking for information on Timothy Ryan Richards. He'd randomly sent me a friend request on Myspace, so I figured I'd investigate to figure out the backstory on this case. The article's summary was rather helpful (and fascinating). Of course, I then felt that Wikipedian urge deep inside to start copyediting. Keep up the good work! Esrever 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Undeleted. ^ demon [omg plz] 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, I now understand about the benign impetus for the article. Herostratus 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's always delicate handling biography subjects who come to edit their articles. However, since you've expressed a negative POV on the subject it'd be best if you didn't also put yourself into an enforcement relationship with him as an editor. - Will Beback · † · 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't received any replies. - Will Beback · † · 06:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I note that in this diff you removed the LGBT project banner from the talk page for the article on Justin Berry. Were the story strictly one of pederasty, I would agree with your removal, even though the banner - in modified form - appears on the NAMBLA talk page. From my perspective, since the story involves both legally underage & legally of-age male-male sexuality, I feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion in the project. I'm posting the same message on your talk page, and I invite you to enter into a dialogue here. -- Ssbohio 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The text, as I understand it, was provided by Justin himself. I'm waiting for confirmation before I act on the copyright issues, accordingly. But no - the article in its current form is not good. Phil Sandifer 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Sandifer ( talk • contribs)
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Phil isn't budging, and I think we have exhausted attempts to resolve this content dispute through negotiation. I've been reviewing his edits, and he's destroyed a number of other articles, and has refused to discuss those as well. An Arbcom case was brought against him for deleting the Child Pornography article, and then speedily closing his own deletion review. The case was apparently moved to email and has disappeared from the board. I find his arguments for deleting content, including Justin Berry, to be specious and unimpressive. Suggestions on how to proceed from here are welcome. Hermitian 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, Ssbohio. I'm glad we're in agreement on the current shape of the article. I have been involved in a few Rfcs and one Arbitration, so I can help organize one if necessary. I also know a few sympathetic administrators who trust my judgment and would be willing to take a look at the issue. Obviously I won't canvass them, but just ask them to take a look at the article and talk page. If I'm lucky I will be able to get to that in the course of today (currently 07:45 here). Let's hope that several editors working in concert and good faith can bring this article back to something less than a disgrace to Wikipedia. Jeffpw 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
17:11, 20 September 2007, Ryulong ( talk · contribs) blocked Hermitian ( talk · contribs) (never, account creation blocked) (Please address all questions about this block to the Arbitration Committee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.195.50 ( talk • contribs)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DanB†DanD 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template I am using. I will be working on this for the next hour or so, then will post it on the talk page, with notices at various other pages (not canvassing, just following the standard guidelines for this as I understand them). Feel free to edit and add to it as well. Let's get this started ASAP. Jeffpw 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The way the image was used in the article was merely for identification nothing more. The image was not used in the article in a way that made his appearance at the time significant. There needs to be supporting, referenced text to tie the image into the article. You may take the discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review for further consideration. - Nv8200p talk 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. You may want to weigh in here. I really don't mean to keep stirring up trouble over an article that's been such a headache for you, but I think the opposite decision on the two IfDs leaves the question of fair use criteria really unclear.
Anyway, the question isn't really about Justin Berry, but I was certain you'd want to be kept in the loop!
DanB†DanD 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the same vandalism keeps recurring, probably from the same vandal. The main thing is catching it quick and reverting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want to really know my opinion of it now, I find the debate to be extraordinarily petty (on my part) and kind of ridiculous. I used a talk page to justify changing it to "and"? And downplaying the technological prowess of MediaWiki? I acknowledge now that attempting to force the change was a bad thing, the approach was wrong, and I should have carried out a talk page discussion before trying to change it back, or after seeing it change back not to crusade and change all &
to &
to make a point. The MOS is flexible and consensus on talk pages determine when the MOS is ambigious and isn't definitively clear.
I don't see you to as a problem editor. In fact I congratulate you on boldness and sensitivity in handling the WP:BLP minefield of Justin Berry, having to be ever viligant and careful about sourcing negative facts, especially after Jimbo Wales personally deleted the article himself. As is my convention, I deliberately do the completely safe, cursory, non-controversial (as much as possible) edits. Nobody is going to yell at me for moving "high school years" up in a biographical manner (before it was being deleted as unsourced material), or achiving the talk page, or, as I thought, changing the & to and. And no one's particular feelings are hurt, or real damage wrought, when I source gameplay information on video game articles.
As for the wikilink issue, can I see the diff? hbdragon88 ( talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you for your honest and constructive comments at my RFA. I do appreciate your concern, and recognize that it is a real problem when certain members of the community feel like they have authority or superior clout. Being a user-contributed resource, Wikipedia needs a constant stream of fresh perspective and energy. If we allow an atmosphere where new users feel like there is a hierarchy of authority obstructing their participation, we will squelch the creativity and growth of the project. I hope you can see from my reply that I do not see adminship as a shiny sherriff's badge or aristocratic symbol. I really do just want a mop to clean up the messes. JERRY talk contribs 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently commented: [2]
I don't think I've ever been intentionally misleading or 'Byzantine' about that article. Sure, biographies of living people are often delicate. Imagine if the article were about you. I think I've supported an honest and direct approach while maintaining important BLP limitations. I'd be happy to discuss the matter here or on my talk page as there's apparently been a misunderstanding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The best place to discuss proposed changes to the Berry article is talk:Justin Berry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice you tried to attack (as in wikipedia attack) a poor McDonalds worker, young female, lately on the Justin Berry page. Your trolling has been noted, please wait for further communication, and I would advise you not to repeat in the mean time. Pol64 ( talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You know I can't do that. its been deleted. But blatant lying isn't a good idea on a site that records your every word. Pol64 ( talk) 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Preface: This isn't directly related to the editing of the Justin Berry article. However, it is the kind of background that I'm viewing this article in comparison to when trying to determine whether it is NPOV.
Justin Berry's full-hour segment on Oprah from February ran again today. It was the same sotry of complete victimization that Berry has told the New York Times' Kurt Eichenwald & the testimony he gave to Congress. Objectively, Oprah's intent was to tell this story, but she did so uncritically. Berry appeared "despite death threats" & at the risk of losing a six-figure book deal. Subjectively, Berry reads as someone who is constructing a story. He pauses to think, verbally hesitates, and appears to choose his words carefully. He doesn't shy away from talking about these matters, but instead smiles occasionally & treats this subject seemingly as a matter-of-fact. Again, this is my subjective read of his appearance. If I were talking to Berry in person, I wouldn't accept what he said at face value. Interviewing subjects & detecting deception & inconsistency is part of what I do for a living, so I have some measure with which to gauge his behavior by.
That said, actually seeing Berry on Oprah convinced me that Berry, while indeed a victim, was also part of a criminal enterprise. He was compromised at an early age by people who can best be described as amoral hedonists. The men Berry performed for gained his confidence with emotionally seductive conversation and gradually lowered his inhibitions. They created a pedophile's dream in Justin Berry. While that explains & mitgates Berry's actions, I still feel it is wrong to ignore his role. Based on facts given on Oprah & in other sources, his monthly income from this business would most likely have exceeded $10,000 and could have reached as high as $70,000, based on the number of subscribers and the range of monthly fees that have been discussed. He received funds throughout his teen years, and I find it incredible to think that the realization never struck him that this is not a normal, healthy way to live his life. Leaving the sexual component aside, any enterprise that must be conducted in secret, whose income must be hidden from everyone, parents & government included, and the consequences of which forced flight to another country, isn't likely to be a legal line of work. My view is that some time between 13 & 19, Justin Berry reached a point where he was conscious of what he was doing, and made a conscious choice to continue on the same path. No situation features entirely pure heroes or entirely evil villains, and this is no exception. It's a facet of our media culture to reduce things to good vs evil, regardless of the nuances or gray areas. So, blame the adults who seduced him, but don't absolve Justin Berry of all responsibility for his own situation.-- Ssbohio 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't edit war your revisions out, I just wanted to let you know why I did what I did. -- Hbdragon88 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.
First, I would actually appreciate it more if you'd actually talk to me on my talk page rather than making rather snide comments such as "And yet he persists, without consensus" on your talk page, which isn't assuming good faith. It seems that we're headed into another conflict over the ampersands, and once again I'd like to bring the issue to your talk page.
To begin with, "consensus" is not "your opinion." You have been reverting my edits; nobody else has reverted the edits, and nobody has started any talk page discussion on the talk page declaring support for either your or my opinions on how the page should look. I wouldn't revert your edits and call it "consensus" because you clearly disagree with me; likewise, I take strong offense when you revert my edits and call it "breaking consensus" when no consensus has been established.
Additionally, the Manual of Style is not "policy" as the TOP OF THE MOS states. You seem to cling hard to the idea that MOS is a bible, even going so far as to state that "Talk:Ampersand carries no policy weight" when the MOS itself isn't policy. It is a style guide, and as the top of the page says, it should be applied "with a certain degree of elasticity." Just because it isn't explicitly stated in the MOS doesn't mean that the change should be reverted on sight.
Third, as the Ampersand page itself states, the ampersand has fallen out of usage and has generlaly been replaced by the word "and." The ampersand is also a special HTML character and causes problems when put into direct text [1]. This is not the MOS, but since Wikipedia is silent, and because the state that the rules should be applied loosely, I choose the "accessibiilty and technical" solution and rational. Therefore, for the ampersand conflict, all ampersands should either be converted into & or be changed into "and". For the sake of simplicity and readability I would suggest the latter, and I come directly to your talk page in the hopes of building "consensus."
That is all. Hbdragon88 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried everything I can think of to make this footnote [1] work in the Justin Berry article [1], but it won't show up correctly [1] in the references section [1]. It works here, but not there. I don't get it. I'm guessing I'm missing something obvious.
Steve, I read your comment on my discussion page regarding the Justin Berry article. I have been pretty occupied with other things lately. I might go to Gourlay's trial hearings if possible. Though, I think the article has more than enough information on Justin Berry and other related incidents.-- Dan Asad 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a former wikipedian who left in spring after having my fill of userbox deletionists, the userbox wheel war, and the ridiculous WP:OFFICE. I might be coming back, but I'm not ready to sign back in just yet. However, I could not resist thanking you for two things:
Nick -- 130.127.121.188 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you contact the Foundation about it. David.Monniaux 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note re: the Justin Berry article. I actually found the article precisely because I was looking for information on Timothy Ryan Richards. He'd randomly sent me a friend request on Myspace, so I figured I'd investigate to figure out the backstory on this case. The article's summary was rather helpful (and fascinating). Of course, I then felt that Wikipedian urge deep inside to start copyediting. Keep up the good work! Esrever 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Undeleted. ^ demon [omg plz] 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, I now understand about the benign impetus for the article. Herostratus 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's always delicate handling biography subjects who come to edit their articles. However, since you've expressed a negative POV on the subject it'd be best if you didn't also put yourself into an enforcement relationship with him as an editor. - Will Beback · † · 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't received any replies. - Will Beback · † · 06:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I note that in this diff you removed the LGBT project banner from the talk page for the article on Justin Berry. Were the story strictly one of pederasty, I would agree with your removal, even though the banner - in modified form - appears on the NAMBLA talk page. From my perspective, since the story involves both legally underage & legally of-age male-male sexuality, I feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion in the project. I'm posting the same message on your talk page, and I invite you to enter into a dialogue here. -- Ssbohio 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The text, as I understand it, was provided by Justin himself. I'm waiting for confirmation before I act on the copyright issues, accordingly. But no - the article in its current form is not good. Phil Sandifer 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Sandifer ( talk • contribs)
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Phil isn't budging, and I think we have exhausted attempts to resolve this content dispute through negotiation. I've been reviewing his edits, and he's destroyed a number of other articles, and has refused to discuss those as well. An Arbcom case was brought against him for deleting the Child Pornography article, and then speedily closing his own deletion review. The case was apparently moved to email and has disappeared from the board. I find his arguments for deleting content, including Justin Berry, to be specious and unimpressive. Suggestions on how to proceed from here are welcome. Hermitian 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, Ssbohio. I'm glad we're in agreement on the current shape of the article. I have been involved in a few Rfcs and one Arbitration, so I can help organize one if necessary. I also know a few sympathetic administrators who trust my judgment and would be willing to take a look at the issue. Obviously I won't canvass them, but just ask them to take a look at the article and talk page. If I'm lucky I will be able to get to that in the course of today (currently 07:45 here). Let's hope that several editors working in concert and good faith can bring this article back to something less than a disgrace to Wikipedia. Jeffpw 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
17:11, 20 September 2007, Ryulong ( talk · contribs) blocked Hermitian ( talk · contribs) (never, account creation blocked) (Please address all questions about this block to the Arbitration Committee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.195.50 ( talk • contribs)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DanB†DanD 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template I am using. I will be working on this for the next hour or so, then will post it on the talk page, with notices at various other pages (not canvassing, just following the standard guidelines for this as I understand them). Feel free to edit and add to it as well. Let's get this started ASAP. Jeffpw 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The way the image was used in the article was merely for identification nothing more. The image was not used in the article in a way that made his appearance at the time significant. There needs to be supporting, referenced text to tie the image into the article. You may take the discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review for further consideration. - Nv8200p talk 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. You may want to weigh in here. I really don't mean to keep stirring up trouble over an article that's been such a headache for you, but I think the opposite decision on the two IfDs leaves the question of fair use criteria really unclear.
Anyway, the question isn't really about Justin Berry, but I was certain you'd want to be kept in the loop!
DanB†DanD 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the same vandalism keeps recurring, probably from the same vandal. The main thing is catching it quick and reverting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want to really know my opinion of it now, I find the debate to be extraordinarily petty (on my part) and kind of ridiculous. I used a talk page to justify changing it to "and"? And downplaying the technological prowess of MediaWiki? I acknowledge now that attempting to force the change was a bad thing, the approach was wrong, and I should have carried out a talk page discussion before trying to change it back, or after seeing it change back not to crusade and change all &
to &
to make a point. The MOS is flexible and consensus on talk pages determine when the MOS is ambigious and isn't definitively clear.
I don't see you to as a problem editor. In fact I congratulate you on boldness and sensitivity in handling the WP:BLP minefield of Justin Berry, having to be ever viligant and careful about sourcing negative facts, especially after Jimbo Wales personally deleted the article himself. As is my convention, I deliberately do the completely safe, cursory, non-controversial (as much as possible) edits. Nobody is going to yell at me for moving "high school years" up in a biographical manner (before it was being deleted as unsourced material), or achiving the talk page, or, as I thought, changing the & to and. And no one's particular feelings are hurt, or real damage wrought, when I source gameplay information on video game articles.
As for the wikilink issue, can I see the diff? hbdragon88 ( talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you for your honest and constructive comments at my RFA. I do appreciate your concern, and recognize that it is a real problem when certain members of the community feel like they have authority or superior clout. Being a user-contributed resource, Wikipedia needs a constant stream of fresh perspective and energy. If we allow an atmosphere where new users feel like there is a hierarchy of authority obstructing their participation, we will squelch the creativity and growth of the project. I hope you can see from my reply that I do not see adminship as a shiny sherriff's badge or aristocratic symbol. I really do just want a mop to clean up the messes. JERRY talk contribs 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently commented: [2]
I don't think I've ever been intentionally misleading or 'Byzantine' about that article. Sure, biographies of living people are often delicate. Imagine if the article were about you. I think I've supported an honest and direct approach while maintaining important BLP limitations. I'd be happy to discuss the matter here or on my talk page as there's apparently been a misunderstanding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The best place to discuss proposed changes to the Berry article is talk:Justin Berry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice you tried to attack (as in wikipedia attack) a poor McDonalds worker, young female, lately on the Justin Berry page. Your trolling has been noted, please wait for further communication, and I would advise you not to repeat in the mean time. Pol64 ( talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You know I can't do that. its been deleted. But blatant lying isn't a good idea on a site that records your every word. Pol64 ( talk) 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)