User talk:Ew0sdc

Ew0sdc, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Ew0sdc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there!

Visit the Teahouse

This message automatically delivered by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Real World[edit]

Hi.

First of all, if you feel that you have valid cause for a revert, that's fine, but reverting not only the portion you disagree with, but the others parts as well, could be seen as tendentious. <ref name=mumass>"[http://www.umassathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/koegel_christian00.html [[University of Massachusetts Amherst]] website]" Umass; undated</ref> is not the proper way to write a citation. My change to it is.

Second, regarding the issue of names: I'm not sure why you state first that it doesn't matter what his given name was, and then stated in the same edit summary that CJ is his first name, but "CJ" is obviously an abbreviation, and sources confirm this. Sources do not indicate that "CJ" is an unabbreviated name. It is the everyday name by which he is more commonly known, and that is why is the name by which he is usually referred to in the majority of the articles in which he is featured. However, Cast tables in the season articles have always had more elaborate information on them, including surnames, full given names, hometowns, since that is valid piece biographical information. If reliable sources are cited for it, as is the case with CJ, then removing it is inappropriate. The various programs generally do not make much use of the cast members surnames, but that doesn't mean that we omit those either. This can be seen in various other RW season articles featuring cast members with abbreviated names, such as the Paris and DC articles. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You are missing the point. Firstly, you and the other user continue to ignore my valid point that we do know JD's first name. It's Jesus. It's all over the Internet."

I have not ignored it, I simply wasn't aware of what JD's full given name is, and do not know of any reliable sources for it, as a cursory Google Search turned up nothing for me. But if you can point out a reliable source for his name, then by all means, do so, and I can assure you, I will gladly add it to the DC article. So there's no inconsistency, nor does this provide an example that proves your point.

"Secondly, Paris is not the same. CT was credited as Chris his Real World season, then changed his on-screen credit after. CJ was always CJ on-air."

And as soon as you can establish that how a biographical subject is "credited" or referred to "onscreen" is relevant, then by all means, do so. As it stands, this is a criterion that you've just made up out of thin air that has nothing to do with how biographies are written in general, or Wikipedia in particular. Any valid biography always details what a person's birth name is. The Tom Cruise article generally refers to him as "Cruise". But that doesn't mean that it omits mention that his birth surname was Mapother.

"This is in accordance with Wiki policy. Like J.D. Salinger, CJ Miles, and TJ Lavin."

Wikpedia calls for the deliberate omission of full names from articles? Really? Which policy would this be? Would it be WP:FULLNAME, which states:

"While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)."

As for J.D. Salinger, CJ Miles, and TJ Lavin, you obviously haven't really looked closely at those articles, because if you did, you would notice that:

The J.D. Salinger article opens with: "Jerome David Salinger (January 1, 1919 – January 27, 2010) was an American author..."
The CJ Miles article openings with: "Calvin Andre "C. J." Miles, Jr. (born March 18, 1987) is an American professional basketball player..."
The TJ Lavin article opens with: "Thomas Joseph Lavin better known as T.J. Lavin is an American BMX rider, professional musician..."

So the notion that Wikipedia articles omit entirely the real, full, birth names of people is demonstrably false, by virtue of your own examples, and to argue that Wikipedia policy calls for this shows that you apparently know little or nothing about Wikipedia policy, which isn't a big shock, given that you've racked up a total of 104 edits since you started editing here a month ago. Perhaps instead of feigning knowledge of policy you don't have, you should make an effort to learn the site's policy, and perhaps ask more experienced editors about the site's policies and guidelines when you come into conflict with them instead of making up fictional standards about how one is "credited", and insisting upon them when others try to inform you otherwise? Nightscream (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you not only again reverted my addition of CJ Koegel's real given name from the Real World: Cancun article, but also reverted the poor writing of the source itself that I had improved with my edit, despite my attempt to politely explain to you above that this is not appropriate, and that the only rationale you offered in your edit summary was the somewhat confusing comment "'Rule' stated has no source". I'm not sure what you mean by this, since the source in question indeed establishes the person's real given name.

I also notice that you similarly removed Koegel's given name from the Battle of the Seasons and the Fresh Meat II articles, using the rationale "Wikipedia and IMDb both give people the name they use professionally. CJ uses CJ professionally. JD is Jesus. TJ is TJ." in both instances.

As I explained to you before, the fact that Wikipedia gives a subject's professional name does mean that it is restricted to mentioning only a subject's professional name, and I gave you four examples of this above, three of which were actually ones that your proposed yourself. I even cited to you WP:FULLNAME, which flat-out disproves this idea. IMDB's policies are also irrelevant, since IMDB has no authority over Wikipedia, and is not considered a reliable source anyway, since websites with user-generated content like imdb cannot be used as sources under Wikipedia:USERG (a point you yourself seemed to indicate you were aware of here). And that's aside from the fact that IMDB itself also gives subjects' full names when it is known, so if you're implying that they only give professional names, it's demonstrably false: Tom Cruise, J.D. Salinger, T.J. Lavin. Do you wish to remove the real names of subjects from all of their Wikipedia articles, despite what WP:FULLNAME says? Do you dispute that WP:FULLNAME applies here?

Now, if you have a valid counterargument that you feel falsifies anything that I've said, then please present it, and I will consider it. If you want, I start a consensus discussion, in which other editors to chime in here in order to consider your arguments. If they decide in favor of your position, then naturally, I will accept this. If you decide you want to have such a discussion, then editing of the article must cease (from both of us), since editors are not permitted to revert contested portions of an article during a consensus discussion, or without discussing it. Doing so constitutes edit warring, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, and is a blockable offense.

Please do not revert the article unless you can offer a valid, policy-based rationale in discussion on a talk page. If you revert the article again without doing so, you'll be blanking valid, sourced content without a valid rationale, and against Wikipedia policy, which will put you at risk for being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your content deletion. The next time you remove valid, sourced content from Wikipedia articles without a valid rationale or discussion, as you did with this edit to The Challenge: Battle of the Seasons, in which you falsely claimed that we had a discussion on the notion of including Christian Koegel's full name in one article and not others, which in fact we did not have, you will be blocked from editing. Koegel has appeared as a cast member on both series, and no discussion was held on this talk page or on the Challenge article's talk page, nor have you offered any rationale for why full names should only be given in the articles for programs in which cast members have first appeared, but not subsequent ones. There is no reason why a reader of one program should know a cast member's full name, but a reader of an article for a subsequent show should not, and two different editors now have disagreed with this practice of yours. The only discussion that was held was the one above in which I falsified the rationale you offered for your prior habit of removing full names from all articles, after which you appeared to leave the discussion over a week ago without any further response. Nightscream (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Okay, I see now that made a comment on October 1 in the discussion below about the issue of cast member names. I did not know this, since this was a few days after your last comment above, and I obviously don't keep your talk page on my Watchlist. I also don't know why your comment is undated, since if you've been here for 10 years, I'd imagine that you'd know how to sign your messages with the four tildes that automatically time stamp the messages.

Regarding your comment "I see what you mean about CJ's first name being on his original page (Cancun) and that page essentially serving as the equivalent of his bio page, sorry about that. Glad you see thereafter though for other pages besides Cancun that Christian should not be included,", I have no idea what you're talking about. The Real World: Cancun is simply the first Bunim-Murray program that CJ appeared on. That does not make the Wikipedia article on that program "his original page", whatever that means. There is no reason why readers of the article on the first program he has appeared on should be given his full name, and readers of the articles for subsequent programs he has appeared on should not, nor have I made any indication to this effect.

Just out of curiosity, what was your prior username? Nightscream (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 Questions about The Real World: DC[edit]

Hi again. Btw, I'm sorry I forgot to Welcome you to Wikipedia earlier. I usually do this with newbies; I forgot earlier. I hope the conflict over naming conventions is resolved, and won't color out future interactions.

I notice you omitted the mention from the Real World: DC article that Josh Colon worked as a production manager on Models, which was supported by a citation of a New York Daily News story. You stated in the accompanying edit summary that "Josh didn't work on Models, NYDN used IMDb which is wrong. The Models Josh is".

My question is, first, how do you know that the DN relied on IMDB? I saw no mention of IMDB in that story.

Second, how you do know that Josh didn't work on Models of the Runway? Did you examine the credits of every episode? Can you be certain that he wasn't uncredited?

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for welcome. However, not new to Wiki. Been here about 10 years), just using a new username. I see what you mean about CJ's first name being on his original page (Cancun) and that page essentially serving as the equivalent of his bio page, sorry about that. Glad you see thereafter though for other pages besides Cancun that Christian should not be included.

IMDb has fixed its mistake, it was confusing Joshua Colon with Josh Colon. Joshua Colon is a crew member who has worked on BMP shows, and whose work goes back to 2001, when Josh of The Real World would have been in his teenage years. See http://realitystaff.com/pages/view/View-Resume/component/ViewResume/id/11776 . Ew0sdc (talk) (UTC). Never have figured out how to sign these properly so hopefully you'll see this message.

Thanks for the clarification. But seriously, you've been here for ten years and don't know how to type four tildes (~~~~) ? What was your prior username? Nightscream (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Hi.

Nightscream asked me to provide a third party opinion concerning the recent edits and interactions between the two of you.

In looking over your recent contributions history, I'm not seeing any article talk page discussion, but quite a few back-n-forth reversions. The only "discussion" I'm seeing besides the edit summaries, is the few posts you and Nightscream have posted on each others' talk pages.

I suggest (per WP:BRD) that you might consider availing yourself of article talk pages. It's also a great way to get other editors' insight and thoughts.

One indicator for concern for me is when I start to see the usage of capital letters as "shouting" in edit summaries.

Being bold is great, but when there is contention, heading to the talk page to work it out would be advisable.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to drop me a note. I'll be watching this talk page. - jc37 15:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ew0sdc. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (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).

Ew0sdc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Didn't do any sockpuppetry. Friend used same computer. Ew0sdc (talk) 7:43 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

At least four friends, actually.... Even if this is true, this is still meatpuppetry, which is equally forbidden. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:52, 6 November 2012 (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).

Ew0sdc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Friend just wanted to voice their opinion. No malice intended. Other accounts made/abandoned as I forget passwords. No harm intended. Can stick with one account for now on. Can make a new one to make easy to recall if okay.

Decline reason:

Both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are prohibited. Whether or not your "friend" used your computer (and believe me, we hear that one every day), or you created a sock, the block is justified. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 13 November 2012 (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.