User talk:Nowthenews
Gmail article[edit]
Hey, thanks for your help on that article! Tan | 39 00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Tyler Hill on PTPSA article[edit]
Your revert of the Hill lawsuit mention on People to People Student Ambassador Program is unwarranted. It is not important that the lawsuit is controversial. It is in the group's 10k filing, makes serious allegations about the group's advertising practices and safety record therefore it is relevant to the group. It deserves both mention and balance (hence I note that the reported deaths give the group a better safety record than automobiles, etc). To not mention it would be a bias of omission.
Oh and I have nothing to do with the lawsuit (and agree with reverting when the parties in the lawsuit or principals in the company edit the article). The closest thing I have to a conflict of interest is my kid got a letter from them in the mail. I went to wikipedia to look up if it was for real or not, then started searching the Internet. The article is a lot better now than it was when I read it in that it now leads one to research the group further.
Reboot (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009[edit]
The recent edit you made to the page Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Gotta defend my honor here a bit. I think you two may have been too quick in reverting my edit and labeling it vandalism. The editors of the People to People Student Ambassador Program article have debated (multiple times) the relevance of the Hill lawsuit and its worthiness of inclusion in the main article. The consensus amongst the editors so far has been to wait until the court makes a decision and then re-evaluate. Please see the lengthy debate on the discussion page. What was re-inserted into the article today is a one-sided presentation of that suit and, indeed, the suit may not be relevant enough to include in the article in the first place (something being discussed on the discussion page). There was a new contributor to the article today who essentially re-inserted the disputed text so I moved that text back to the discussion page and encouraged that user review the existing debate on the discussion page. I've also started a new discussion of the issue on the discussion page to engage the editor in a conversation on the text. By encouraging the revert of my edit, I think you guys may have trumped the existing consensus amongst the editors of that article (i.e. re-inserted controversial text that the editors have chosen to leave on the discussion page until the court has rendered its decision). I ask you to re-evaluate whether my reversion was vandalism in light of this information. Sometimes the vandal is not the person doing the reverting, but rather the person who keeps reinserting a topic that has already been rejected by the consensus of the article's editors. Thanks. Nowthenews (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Re[edit]
umm.. I'm not really sure how it happened, but I think the program I'm using must have warned you for an edit that the above user reverted. You should probably ask him about it, but I don't want to get get involved. I'm just reverting vandalism and I think my program made an error. Sorry. Thingg⊕⊗ 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- no. heh. I mean, I am using a program to revert vandalism and that's how you got a warning from me. But, I didn't revert your edit. The other user who warned you (staffwaterboy) was the one who reverted your edit. If I was the one who made the revert, I would gladly undo it, but I didn't make the revert. What I can't figure out is how you got warned by me; the program shouldn't warn people unless it reverts them. sorry for the confusion. Thingg⊕⊗ 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please show me the link to were i flagged you that will be a great help i am witting it here and not a new section since it concerns the same thing it was most likey a mistake but i need a reference to show me what you are refereeing to thanks.
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
if you are refereeing to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_to_People_Student_Ambassador_Program&action=history then yes it must be a program error i will try to see why this is happen sorry for the inconvenience.
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know for reason the program is still picking up on your's and reboot's edit. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 02:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Not true[edit]
I'm perfectly happy to reach a consensus but I also am not just going to go away and let you do what you've been doing. A small minority of editors have been watching over the article and making sure that it stays spun in a certain direction. I'm happy for balance but only balance, not a PR page for the company. A consensus can be reached by a more well referenced article that includes more depth and more information, not reverting anything "controversial" to the participants. Especially given that the interests seem to be trying to tilt the article. You just keep reverting anything you don't like and pushing the burden on the other party. You're not making an attempt to reach a consensus, just attempting to "outlast" those who want the article to include more information. I note that those with a more varied record of edits than you have been so outlasted. Reboot (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
PTP[edit]
For starts, several of the previous editors have "new accounts" right before they started editing THIS article. We had one major editor who turns out to be an EMPLOYEE. So as I suggested, let's start working on the part we DO agree on (like the nomination process, but leave in references and list of states). And How am I especially non-neutral? I have a long history across hundreds of articles and largely rely on references. The only bias I have is against "ad" style wikipedia entries (which this article still has features of). You have a history predominantly focused on THIS SINGLE article about a company whose employees have been trying to revert this information. I read the page and I responded why that was bunk and gave examples of other articles that do not follow this and noted that articles are independent and that this is not a policy. I disagree. Others do to, you just bullied them out of the article. you CAN reach a consensus with me, but you're going to have to give a little too! Reboot (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that both sides of this lawsuit have been interfering. You have to agree your "User Contributions" make you a bit suspect, while I assume good faith, a "new user" who for some reason decides that ONE student travel agency should be the focus of their edits on wikipedia and sustains it for months at a time is kind of suspicious. I do not agree with your standard or your territorial view of wikipedia. I'm an editor of MANY articles and RARELY participate in disputes. Your constant reverts violated the three revert rule and I only regret that you've pulled me down with you. Your consensus didn't exist. You can go down the history and find that most that disagreed just gave up. (Because the article isn't that interesting, my interest really only peaked after the strange behavior of the interested parties that would surely irk their respective lawyers). I don't however agree that all things you disagree with inclusion of (things you disagree with are hence "controversial") should be relegated to the talk page. Instead I think that a full treatment to the article with MORE references and MORE sources is a good way to treat it and having more people "new to the article" come help sort it out. However, I'm not going to let you revert everything into the earlier form of the article which read like the company's webpage. I came to the article originally looking to vet a letter in the mail. The article was absolutely useless for that, I thought my kid really was "selected" until I found other sources. The article should be a useful source for the public, investors, etc. That means noting that there are pending lawsuits regarding the safety, state investigations, BBB complaints, etc. This is a public company so performance, financial results, its financial controls (any executive been indicted lately?), etc should all come in if they are out there. Feel free to add more content that you think is relevant and balances it out. Feel free to rewrite WELL REFERENCED sections (I will like them if they are shorter and more to the point but include liberal use of references), but cut out the revert war and the holy than thou "my territory" stuff... Reboot (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I merely reflected your insinuation back at you. I could care less whether the program is given a fair trial or not, the issue is whether the material is relevant. It obviously is, Google thinks so, the news thinks so, other articles mention such controversies. anyhow I asked a third party to come in. He has nominated the whole thing for deletion. I asked him to review the other related article stubs (which should really be merged). Hopefully we'll get some more involvement and settle this. BTW if it isn't given a fair trial, I'll be adding a section on the unfair trial it was given as it will be relevant to the article. Reboot (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You're just repeating yourself. Wikipedia isn't here to give the company a fair trial, it is here to make sure that you can find out what you need to know about the company and its program.. Or if we can't have a fair non-advertisement then deleting it so as to not have a deceptive article that implies by omission that there is no controversy regarding the safety or that your kid really was nominated (rather than sent an advertisement in the mail). I cannot believe that if a student travel program is encyclopedic, that the tactics they use in advertising, 2 students have died on their trips in suspicious accidents and that a parent had to go pick their kid up from austrailia and that the company is engaged in a lawsuit that might affect its earnings and future performance -- if properly referenced -- ISN'T relevant or ONLINE-encyclopedic...SERIOUSLY??? If a student travel service company IS relevant than these issues about it and its marketing tactics are certainly relevant.. I can be convinced that this travel service is not relevant enough for mention. Reboot (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit war[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The article will be locked until this can be resolved.Well for 3 days for now
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 04:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
see my proposal[edit]
feel free to counter propose. Reboot (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)