User talk:Republic of Texas: Difference between revisions
→dogs and cats: new section |
|||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> |
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> |
||
== dogs and cats == |
|||
test test test |
|||
Revision as of 07:11, 4 August 2010
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Republic_of_Texas. |
Attention:This IP address is registered to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, and may be shared by multiple users in the United States military. Because the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.
For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block shared by many.Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.
| Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation. |
About Me
I'm 43 years old and work for the U.S. Government in law enfrocement. I am also in the U.S. Miltary and am an officer.
What I think Wikipedia is about
A 2008 United Nations University survey of 130,000 Wikipedia users exposes a surprising profile: the average age of a contributor is 26.8 years (10 years younger than the average age of the general population in ‘more developed’ countries), 87% are male, and at least 46% are not university educated. Even with this relatively young age and education profile, 70-90% of contributors self-identify as “experts”.http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/ Since I try to view the articles as they would be seen by someone NOT a part of this demographic, I try to include information relevant to them. If these non-demographic members are searching for, say, Erin Andrews, why do you think that is? They don't care about her sportscasting "career" or that she once worked for "the Sunshine Network." They want to know what's up with the naked tapes, and the who, what, when, where, why & how of the matter.
We have got to remember - the people who edit Wikipedia are NOT the people who use Wikipedia. And if we wish to remain relevant and interesting, we must keep the non-user demographic in mind. Republic of Texas (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted you addition of their real names - see the article's Talk page here for why not. Tabercil (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- okay, I read that stuff. But to my analysis it seems to be nothing more than an 'argument' amongst sockpuppets on behalf of Kevin & Sandra Otterson. These people have put themselves out into the public eye. Their full names, dates of birth, current home address, and social security numbers are all out there on the internets. It is a famous website and I see nothing wrong with putting names to the faces involves. One would guess that if they didn't want to be personally identified then they probably should not have put naked pictures of themselves on the internet for all the world to see - including neighbors, co-workers, family, and friends. (And God Almight would I hate to be one of their children!)Republic of Texas (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter - if they do not wish to have their names on Wikipedia, we have to try and honour their request. This is from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. " See the Flower Tucci article history for a recent example of this principle being applied to an article. Since there's just one reliable source so far for the names of the people behind Wifey's World and it hasn't been publicized further than that, I don't see how we can add it. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- How do you know that they do not wish to have their names on wikipedia? Have they sent a letter or something? I am not trying to be funny here, it is a serious question. Unless someone has proof that this is their wishes, it sounds like more of an assumption to me - and assumptions have no role in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. In addition, I do not see how such a thing can be optional. I am sure that there are a lot of people who have articles about them here who wished to have them removed, too. But personal desires play no role in an encyclopedia, as far as I can see. Regarding you claim of 'one reliable source', I don't see what that has to do with anything. The realibility of the source is the issue. And just because it is not constantly republished over and over should make no difference. I haven't seen too many news articles about Rudolf Hess lately. But he still gets an article here.
- The fact that they might not want their names here is a 'so what' issue to me. If you don't want people to know who you are you probably shouldn't be posting naked pictures of yourselves on the internet for all the world to see. I am going to read those links that you put here. But, really, all of their personal info is already out there anyways.Republic of Texas (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
|
