User talk:SwimDude

Welcome

Hello, SwimDude, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

January 2011

Thank you for experimenting with the page Michael Milken on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --John Nagle (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on logging in

Going forward, please remember to log in when you edit. Editing while logged out as a way to avoid scrutiny or to make it seem like multiple people have edited is unacceptable and may result in you being blocked. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove sourced content without valid explanation

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michael Milken. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please explain to me why you feel it is necessary to include the Conviction, Penalty and Federal Prisoner number in the right-side box on Michael Milken's BLP page. I do not see one single such reference on any other page in Wikipedia involving someone not currently serving. SwimDude (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Milken. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned against edit warring. Please stop. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Milken_family_reputation_enhancement_project, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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. [1] JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwimDude for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 could 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) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milken is not alone

We do frequently have the conviction and penalty noted in other infoboxes. A quick sampling finds:

and occasionally ID number

Ted Kaczynski

So I disagree with your premise that Milken is somehow being singled out. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why does Martha Stewart not have this type of information in her box at the top of the page? Why not Michael Vick? Is there a Wiki standard ... or not? SwimDude (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because each article is created on its own based on what the reliable sources say and what the editorial consensus on that article is deemed to be appropriate for that article. And Micheal Vick DOES HAVE that information. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has it far down the page - not at the top. I guess you and everyone else is reaching consensus and disregarding my input, correct? SwimDude (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more than you are ignoring

and that have ignored John Nagle analysis that Vick and Stewart were convicted of crimes that were not related to the acts that made them notable in the first place. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Three are dead and the other comes from Russia, where rule of law doesn't exist. My point is: two Wiki contributors have decided that they are correct and a third is not; therefore the third can simply be disregarded. If we were having a discussion designed to reach consensus (and that is what Wiki is about, right?), then you might have to consider that the Milken bio contains a more-than thorough vetting of his legal issues. You also might recognize that Milken has another side to him, and that just perhaps, he should not be defined in the box at the top of his page solely by a 20-year-old conviction, but by the full breadth of his life. To disregard one in favor of the other is not building consensus, it's imposing your own POV. C'mon. We both know Milken is a controversial figure. The question is can we offer a complete overview of his life without POV or bias. SwimDude (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sock-puppetry diminishes your credibility. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cover article topics in proportion to the coverage given them by reliable sources - if anything, the % of reliably sourced content covering Milkens crimes is under represented in our article compared to the what % of the pixels and ink written about him cover. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2011 block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]