User talk:Nbhockeyplayer

March 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Richard Trumka, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The source you cited did not support the assertion you made in the article, quite apart from doubts as to the reliability of the source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has expressed a concern that you may have been involved in sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using a Wikipedia account to appear to be a different person than when you made other edits not using that account. Please make sure that all editing you do is transparent, and if you have indeed edited not using this account, then you should say so, to avoid any unjustified suspicion falling on you, and possibly being blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this Wikipedia crap is really getting on my nerves. I am not impersonating anyone. You know, you make it exceedingly difficult for new members to contribute with the nonstop warnings, threats, and other hazing. Nbhockeyplayer (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)talkback[reply]

Greetings.

Please don't get frustrated. Editing Wikipedia can be rewarding, it is just that there are certain rules that must be followed.

Consider, if you falsely edit an article about a living person, that person may feel compelled to file a lawsuit. Therefore, Wikipedia rules are very strict whenever you do such editing.

By my count, four individuals have recorded — explicitly, or through revert — either here or in the edit history, that your edit of Richard Trumka did not meet verifiability requirements. I agree with all four of them, so you can consider me number five to say so. At least 3 of us are longtime Wikipedia editors (i don't know the other two). So please take this seriously, so that you don't get into trouble and lose entirely your editing privileges.

Sock puppetry doesn't mean that you are impersonating someone else. It means that you are using more than one identity — for example, two different login IDs, or a login ID and an IP address — in order to artificially make it appear that there is consensus on an issue. Sock puppetry can get an editor banned, possibly forever. It is sometimes very easy to detect, so a word to the wise.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, I can tell you that Wikipedia was not nearly as locked-down as it is today. It's become a closed society; new contributors are barraged with threats, warnings, and pretentious users claiming authority.

As liberal an organization Wikipedia may be, there is signifcant evidence to suggest, along with his own personal convictions, that Richard Trumka supports communist views. It wouldn't be the first time a labor leader claimed to be a communist.

Because Trumka, his aides, and numerous organizations have repeatedly stated his support of communism and socialism, there should be no reason why we are trying to hide it here. I can guarantee that if someone placed a term detrimental to a conservative's agenda, there'd be no resistance at all.

Perhaps if I recovered my account from a few years back I wouldn't have to deal with all this newcomer hazing. It is honestly pathetic at how many disciples of Wikipedian law we have running around these days, and believe me, you're going to lose members, myself included, if the self-righteous "veterans" continue to insult and harass new members attempting to contribute.

Nbhockeyplayer, you are quite welcome to believe whatever you wish. Our responses were based upon the edit that you (and an anonymous IP editor) made, and these edits were all false, in that they (1) did not properly reflect the source, and (i would argue) (2) the source may not be considered credible, even if your edits had been faithful to the source. You are expressing an opinion (above), and then concluding that your opinion can become a fact on Wikipedia. It simply doesn't work that way, and it never will. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your unhappy comments above, may I point out that I did not accuse you of sockpuppetry. I informed you that another editor had expressed concern, and advised you on how to avoid any unjustified suspicion. I thought it was a courtesy to let you know that someone had expressed doubt about you. I feel that, unfortunately, you have got a minor incident out of proportion, and I hope you can now put it behind you and move on. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different issue, you say that Trumka has "repeatedly stated his support of communism". If so then you should not have difficulty finding a reliable source that says so, and the information can then be added to the article. However, the source you cited said no such thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]