User talk:JoeGuru

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Hank Skinner do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I'm still learning. Skinner's supporters haave turned this Wikipedia page into a propaganda site. I'm trying to bring some balance to their "reporting."

I removed the link to hankskinner.org since it is self-sourced. It probably doesn't need to be an external link either. I'm trying to figure out how to work both into a section in the article because hankskinner.com poses some interesting questions.

Hank skinner article

The hank skinner defense site is part of the external links, not part of the article, but it contains the transcript of all the decisions about the case.

I won't eliminate sites because against skinner but they have to avoid using the same templates as the defense site, it is just a question of decency.

I will keep balance also in this debate but even you don't deny that the refusal by the state of Texas to test the evidence is a key element which make this case so controversial.

Why don't you let the article reflect the simple fact that no matter when, evidence has to be tested and the truth has to be uncovered? It is like the US constitution: Right to life and to liberty and pursuit of happiness have not to be demonstrated because they are hold as "self evident". It is the same for the truth in justice.----Adumoul (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your documentation on the case

Even if you don't like the defense site, you have there the full documentation, and what I am writing about Andrea Reeds is stated plainly in the minutes of the evidentiary hearing transcript of november 2005. --Adumoul (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it is "Reed". I corrected it. JoeGuru (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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) 15:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

The external links are not part of the article, they are references for further reading about the case. At the present time, for the Skinner article, you have 3 external links referring to Texas authorities and only 1 external link to the defense site... Already Wikipedia reflects here a view largely in favor of Texas authorities.

The site that you say now is not a "defense site" how do you want to call it ? I cannot find another word since it is created by the Hank Skinner Defense fund and organized by the defense legal team.

Now you admit yourself that the State of Texas has created a major public relation problem by consistently withholding evidence, and they if keep doing it why do you want to help them?

Wikipedia reflects a world view, not a Texan authority view, on a determined topic. Allow me to ask you, which view do you defend? On Wikipedia we are not bound by an "official" truth. If the validity of Texas judge decisions is questioned here, we are not in Texas. When states authorities are systematically trying to cover up their mistakes, we don't have to endorse them. --Adumoul (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Informed administrators notice board

I will not have an edit warring, but I have reported the incident:

Hank Skinner

• Hank Skinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is an article about a famous death penalty case. An user called JoeGuru keeps deleting the link to the official defense site [1]. He deletes the links and replace is with this one

[2], which is anonymous, unsourced, libelous and uses the same templates as the faking the defense site. This user has appeared on Wikipedia in the purpose of twisting the article about Hank Skinner, so far he has almost no contribution to wikipedia. I don't delete his contributions when they can be part of the process of making the article more balanced, but I don't accept his vandalism with the sources. // --Adumoul (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)--Adumoul (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hank Skinner

Skinner and his compadres don't want any negative information--anything that calls their celebrity icon into question to appear on Wikipedia. It is tremendously unbalanced and one-sided filled full with Skinner propaganda. The website in question does not violate copyright. It has not received one takedown notice and copyright notices appear nowhere on the "other" site.

This is simply a political issue. The Hankskinner.Org site contains self-sourced information and opinion. So does Hankskinner.com.

You should familiarize yourself with the reliable sources guidelines. Sites with a bias (such as both of the ones you mentioned) are not as useful as sources as neutral, independent sources, like newspapers. A biased source isn't a reliable way to verify the accuracy of information, which is why Wikipedia tries to avoid adding them. People who edit-war to keep biased information (on any side of an issue) are generally blocked; I'm adding Hank Skinner to my watchlist, and I'll block you if I see you've added that link again unless there is clear consensus on the article's talk page that it should be added. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a section on the talk page where you can join in the discussion about whether both, or either, of the two sources you are interested in meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Once consensus is established, the necessary changes can be made. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this apply to Hankskinner.Org or just Hankskinner.Com? If it applies to .Org, then that link needs to be removed until the issue is decided.JoeGuru (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, repeatedly undoing other people's edits is against the rules no matter which link is involved. As far as I've seen, though you haven't been repeatedly undoing edits in relation to the other web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, I meant is it appropriate for the .ORG site to remain as an external link or should it be a supporting link (reference)?

Personally, I don't think that either of them belong in the article at all. I'm waiting for a few other users to weigh in, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they're probably legitimate reference points for specific events: e.g. Skinner taking issue with the .COM site and the fact that so many court documents are on .ORG. However, there is a lot of fluff there too. They're both apropos to the issue at hand because you can't tell the full story without them and there are things that aren't documented anywhere else. I've been trying to balance and clarify the material going into the article so it doesn't look like legal conclusions were drawn, or facts confirmed, where there were not. It's just difficult when you have an international celebrity who wants to use every possible resource for propaganda.

"Very important"

There is a change in the way you write. ....We can improve this article by contributing from opposing points of views. Adumoul (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed JoeGuru (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think

"When a person is wrongly convicted, the only word that properly describes the outcome is "injustice." A profoundly grave harm is done to an innocent person, and the true criminal remains at large to continue preying on society." When a justice system refuses to do all what is possible to prevent such an outcome, the same word comes to my mind: injustice. --Adumoul (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can't really judge whether or not he was wrongly convicted. On the surface, my opinion, he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There are just some things that can't be explained away. However, I'm interested in seeing what the outcome of this particular twist on post-conviction DNA testing will be. I'm on the fence about testing the DNA in this case but leaning toward "test it and get it over with." JoeGuru (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JoeGuru. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)