User talk:El jefe04

You have reverted the Ars Technica article a few times. I like to encourage you to participate in the discussion of the article, especially when it comes to adding or removing contested material from the article. We can all maybe reach a consensus that way. Have a great day! Tsetna 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll encourage you again, since you are still reverting without discussing anything. Tsetna 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued attempts to push through a variation on the Ars Technica article without participating in the ongoing mediation on the talk page, are not helpful, and are going to continue to be removed until you get bored, are banned from editing, or you participate in consensus-building discussion with the other editors. That's how things work around here. There's really no benefit to you, the article, or Wikipedia in general to continue changing things without discussion. Thanks. -/- Warren 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revert seems valid to me. It is my understanding that Ars Technica Editors are reverting criticism to the article about their own website. El jefe04 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the current active editors (myself, Warrens, Tetsna) are Ars Technica writers, editors, or moderators. Claims that we must be are nothing but personal attacks in violation of WP:AGF. The criticism was removed because it specifically violates Wiki policy on WP:NOR (specifically where it states that content that "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" cannot be included in Wiki) and WP:RS (specifically "posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources"), and is iffy WRT WP:NPOV and the guidelines WP:WEASEL and Wikipedia:Criticism. This has been discussed in detail with lists of specific policy provisions on the Ars Technica talk page, without defense as to why the contested criticism isn't a violation of Wiki policy. The criticism went wholely undefended during mediation and should be discussed on the Talk before added back. - Debuskjt 14:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd encourage you to please, please discuss this on the Talk page. Reverting material back into the article that has been disputed on the Talk page without explanation is baffling to everyone else, to say the least. Thank you for actually responding to issues raised on your Talk page. - Debuskjt 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you two quote the wikipedia rules and guidelines but your reasoning is not consistent. why only remove the sections under Criticism Section that use forum links as a reference? especially when those postings, quotes, and information are written by the site administrators themselves for the most part. if you read that rule as saying that any information that uses a forum as a post is not allowed, then why don't you remove all the sections in the rest of the article that use the forum as a reference?

this is why the article deserves a revert, because your logic does not make sense. you are just removing criticism which leaves an unbalanced article. either remove all the sections that match what you say, or leave all the sections in. also, someone had already mentioned that the criticisms themselves are the same sorts of things you see in articles about other websites, and tsetna and djebusk have no complaint about those pages. but they complain about it here and selectively delete parts of the article. ars technica generatees over $50,000 a month in revenue, so it is understandable why people involved with this website in some way would want to remove the negative parts of the article about their website. El jefe04 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please peruse my edit history. I spend most of my time editting articles to remove content that is against Wiki policy. In fact, I monitor several articles on subjects I've no interest in because their content requires vigilent maintenance since the content attracts editors ignorant of Wiki policy. If you felt this way about the article, why would you ignore mediation? Why wouldn't you actively edit to improve the article? Why wouldn't you discuss it? Furthermore, as I told the anon on the Talk page of the Ars article, any sections of the article you feel is in error or not properly cited, modify/delete or add the {{uncited}} template with your reasoning documented in your edit summary.

That is the way Wiki works. Wiki policy gives due weight to criticism because of its very nature, and it's something we should be very sensitive about. In fact, Wiki guidelines suggest not even having a criticism section of the article, but instead providing balanced, NPOV criticism throughout the page where appropriate. If you don't want to take the effort yourself, you can always file a Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to solicit input from lots of Wikipedians. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to invest a lot of effort in improving the article overall when a small group of users keeps reverting back to inferior versions of the article to push a WP:POINT.

I feel you aren't taking the time to adequately understand the topic and guidelines of Wiki. First, the prohibition on message board and blog postings is there for a reason: they're generally not content checked and from anonymous users, making them unreliable sources. That isn't a hard rule (and the policy is nebulus to understand for those unfamiliar with it). But Caesar (for example) is a reputable source for how Ars runs, even in his blog/postings. The words of a moderator are a reputable source for how Ars is moderated. The words of someone well-known, even on a blog, is fine. That is why the search criticism has stayed. That is why the IP Democracy criticism has stayed. That is why Tetsna and I have openly disagreed on the criticism concerning political content. And there is a vast, vast difference between citing facts and opinions and creating an opinion based on "facts" that cite forum postings with no regard for who the poster may be. You are then synthesizing information, and that is WP:OR. Not to mention that the facts don't even correlate to the opinion set forth in the removed criticism (which has also been documented on the Ars Talk page).

Moving on, I'll politely request links to Wiki artlces of technical websites with criticism similar to the criticism raised in the Ars article. The one example given on the Ars talk page was Slashdot, which then had its criticism section at the time quoted section by section to disprove any similarity. And, in fact, the current Slashdot criticism is well-cited and isn't OR. Furthermore, why would the revenue of Ars matter when those editting the article don't get paid by Ars? Ars isn't for-profit, nor does it turn one AFAIK (though it may, I've never even seen figures for revenue at Ars). Having revenue != having profit.

In closing (and this may sound harsh), I ask you to look at my edit history on Wiki, and then look at your own. Look at the fact that I have openly disclosed my history with Ars (where I post as the user JonTD), and you have not. I am not hiding behind an IP address or any other user name. I'm making no accusations about your motives, but I'm going to have very little tolerance going forward of being accused of having a paid association with Ars Technica. It's insulting, it's in violation of WP:AGF, and it just makes me angry. Particularly since I made several efforts to improve and update lots of content in the article without touching criticism under discussion, and I have argued for certain pieces of criticism to stay because I feel the sources are reliable, the criticism is fair and balanced, and it isn't OR. I also ask that this discussion be moved to Talk:Ars Technica to solicit feedback from a larger audience, and thank you for continuing to dialog. - Debuskjt 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you're going to complain about my post history, look at tsetna's. He comes in, in the middle of a content debate, and began reverting the article. 99% of his wiki edits are related to this article. El jefe04 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsetna has been open about his own involvement at Ars on the Ars Technica Talk page, and I see no reason to disbelieve that he isn't Ars staff. The current revert wars not-withstanding, he has contributed to the Ars Technica article and others on Wiki. The few Ars moderators and writers who have contributed edits to the Ars article (Clintology, Jeremy Reimer, DrPizza) have made no attempt to hide their identity or association. But I'm not complaining about your post history, I'm responding to allegations about my association with Ars. You essentially suggest that I'm being paid by Ars Technica, and I think it's understandable that I would be offended by that. It's baseless to target me. If you have a personal issue with Tsetna, you can always speak to him personally on his Talk page, as he's been very open to comment and debate with me in the past. Thanks again. - Debuskjt 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Debuskjt said. I have nothing to do with Ars Technica's editorial staff or moderators, other than occasionally telling them that they've made factual errors in their postings on Microsoft-related subjects. -/- Warren 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you arent, but it looks like the other two work as a team with each other, and remove even validated criticism like the part on plagiarism. That is why i do not respect their edits because they are abusing wikipedia for profit. El jefe04 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your only responsibility here at Wikipedia is to discuss these changes on the article's talk page, not simply try to ram through whatever you think the 'right version' is. You're being quoted the Wikipedia policies BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THEM. This is unacceptable, no matter what your opinion or my opinion about the content or the motivations of other editors may be. Accordingly, I will revert your changes forever and ever until you come to the article's talk page and discuss the article like Wikipedians do. If you want to see your changes stay, you really have no choice in the matter. Either that or you can save us all the hassle, leave that edit button alone and find some activity other than vandalising an encyclopedia to waste your time on. Okay? -/- Warren 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the other two are following wikipedia policies either. I was reverting vandalism and self-biography both of which are not allowed. El jefe04 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What specific provisions of WP:AUTO do you think I have violated and where? What specific provisions of WP:VANDAL? In all seriousness, if you feel like I have acted in bad faith, you should file your concerns with commentary at WP:WQA. - Debuskjt 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Edit to Ars Technica

Hi. I just wanted to ask that if you intend to make such huge edits in one go, you document each change first on Talk:Ars Technica per Wikipedia:How to edit a page#major edits. It's not required, but a suggestion if you're new to editing Wiki articles and important if you don't want people to think your edits are in bad faith. There were several things you removed that were verifiable from sources already cited in the article and other things that should have been tagged with {{uncited}} to try to attract editor attention from Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Keep in mind that Ars itself is a source, so simple facts (which are exempt from WP:OR, obviously) like writing staff are verifiable through the website, even if a grouped listing does not exist. I've went through and cited some things, and others I left out because I agree that their exclusion is better WRT to WP:NPOV. Thanks. - Debuskjt 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on that, give me a minute :) El jefe04 21:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]