Talk:Cameron Winklevoss

MERGE SUGGESTION OF WINKLEVOSS TWINS

Both Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss pages are nearly identical. Recommend

.Deaddebate (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Until and unless there's separate content about each, but even there the common information should be in one place. There's also a lot of redundant information at Divya Narendra and ConnectU, as well as other articles. One problem with forking the same content to multiple places is that they don't all get edited in sync. They begin to diverge and errors creep in. Also it defeats the utility of the wikilinks. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for separate articles due to their achievements all being joint efforts. Not enough notability as individuals to warrant their own articles. Zarcadia (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above. Both seem to accomplish things in tandem, rather than individually. Any minor personal achievements (if there are any) could be mentioned in a joint article. Esrever ^(klaT) 21:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Merging the pages of brothers makes sense since so much does overlap. Wikiacurracy (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If the Coen brothers don't qualify as separate individuals, despite only one being married to Frances McDormand, these two shouldn't either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.120.1 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree.Twins are notable as individual athletes. They do not compete exclusively as a team, they have competed and medaled separately internationally in 4-man boats and 8-man boats at notable international competitions. The selection and naming procedure for athletes in the sport of Rowing as governed by the IOC, USOC and respective NGB, is on an individual athlete basis. Should an athlete not be able to compete or decline to compete, only this athlete is replaced, not the entire team of athletes.Ricodecalo (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious. You registered your account right before you posted your two identical comments to Talk:Cameron Winklevoss and Talk:Tyler Winklevoss. Very similar to Johnnywalker56. One wonders on the connection between the two accounts and the high degree of interest to keep the brothers separate and distinct while downplaying the negative information regarding ConnectU from appearing on the articles. Seems self-serving. Regardless of what the IOC, USOC, or NGB says, this is Wikipedia with its own governing rules and guidelines. The articles, content, and notability of both people are not different enough at this time to warrant two separate articles. In fact, the tiny difference between the two -- that of Guest of a Guest involvement -- will be better fitted as a footnote on the merged article. Wikiacurracy (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. FYI, your name Wikiacurracy is in violation of WP:UPOLICY, specifically "misleading usernames" which imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia. Your comments are in violation of WP:FIVEPILLARS, the fourth pillar-"wikipedians should interact in respectful and civil manner and assume good faith in others."Ricodecalo (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It seems very weird to me to merge two people's encyclopaedia entries just because they are twins. In terms of "notability", it is likely that Sergey Brin and Larry Page wouldn't have wikipedia entries if not for their relationship with Google, which was a joint venture -- does that mean that we should merge their pages too? Obviously not. I think the situations are analogous, and the only difference is that the Winklevosses are twins, and Brin and Page are not. Their twin-ness should not have an impact on the decision. Disclaimer: I am acquainted with the Winklevosses, although I haven't talked to them in years and don't know what their position is on the page merge proposal. Bayle Shanks (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. These must be two separate entries as per usual encyclopedic content. Future events will likely be very different for these two professionals as they are still at the beginning of their careers (November, 2010), not historical figures who have expired. Just as every real encyclopedia contains two separate entries for twins, so every virtual knowledge base should also have separate information. Separate entries would seem to meet Wikipedia content standards. 24.177.3.8 (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. A direct comparison of the pages as they are now shows almost no differences between the articles; while there may be more information available on their individual accomplishments, etc., in the future, at the moment there's not enough to warrant two articles. Dysperdis (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Premature Deletion of Info Unrelated to the Merge above

I Merged ConnectU material to ConnectU article. Material is redudant, not directly related, and already exists in ConnectU article. I disagree regarding merging Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, they are notable in that they both individually Olympians, while their achievements are mostly in tandem, they are individual achievements and they are not all identical.Johnnywalker56 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

First, you did not merge to ConnectU article. You simply deleted the info off Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra pages, without discussing it here first. No decision has been made or discussed. I reverted your action until further discussion is made by other members. Wikiacurracy (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironic. Wikiacurracy, after changing your name to BlueImpact to conform with WP:UPOLICY, you have in your own words "simply deleted the info off Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss...without discussing it here first. No decision has been discussed. I reverted your action until further discussion is made by other members." It is baffling how you proceeded to make the same type of edit that you yourself protested against earlier. Furthermore, you represented your edit as minor which it is not. Please refer to WP:MINOR which states specifically, "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." It is bewildering how you considered this as minor edit when you previously set up this section on the talk page to discuss this very same type of major edit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalker56 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 October 2010

Actually, long-time user The Yeti (talk) suggested to trim it on the other almost-identical Talk:Tyler Winklevoss. I am fine with or without the trim. Here is his original quote from the other talk page:

"Agree. Or at least severly trim it. It is disproportionate to the subject, and is virtually a verboten copy of the ConnectU article. The Yeti (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)"

-- BlueImpact (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further Irony Here is your original quote "Disagree. The info here is a mere summary of the info in the ConnectU article. The ConnectU article is extremely more detailed, and info will be lost without these summaries that link the person to those events." Furthermore, it is a violation to cite that The Yeti user is a "long-time user" in an effort to represent his or her comments as having more or special authority over wikipedia. It is clear that despite changing your username to conform with "username policy" WP:USERNAME namely "no names should contain titles which imply authority on Wikipedia, you have still not grapsed the "Five Pillars" WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. Citing that a user is a "long time user" to defend your "disruptive editing" WP:DISRUPT is misleading in that you are suggesting one editor has more authority on Wikipedia than another editor, and it is irrelevant to the fact that you have engaged in "disruptive editing" WP:DISRUPT.Johnnywalker56 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Point? Not sure what you're ranting about as it is off-topic. Do you want to keep the info the way it is now or not? BlueImpact (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MERGE SUGGESTION OF /* ConnectU */ SECTION WITH CONNECTU ARTICLE

Merge Suggestion of /* ConnectU */ section with ConnectU article. Material is redundant, not directly related, and already exists in ConnectU article. Recommend

.Johnnywalker56 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The info here is a mere summary of the info in the ConnectU article. The ConnectU article is extremely more detailed, and info will be lost without these summaries that link the person to those events. Summaries are OK -- although the Zuckerberg section could be trimmed here. Wikiacurracy (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironic. Wikiacurracy, you disagree with my suggestion of a merger of the ConnectU section in the Tyler Winklevoss article with the ConnectU article because you describe this section as already "a mere summary" of the info in the ConnectU article. You then proceed to change your name to BlueImpact and uniilaterally merge the ConnectU section of the Tyler Winklevoss article stating in the edit summary that you "trimmed to summary". I am dumbfounded at how what you described earlier as "a mere summary" was now ready to be "trimmed to summary". You performed the same exact edit and edit summary to the Cameron Winklevoss article. Your editing behavior is in violation of Wikipedia behavior guidline "Gaming the system" WP:GAME, namely "attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies and procedures by using various tricks to make bad faith edits." It also constitutes "disruptive editing" WP:DISRUPT, namely "a pattern of edits disrupting progress toward improving an article." You have also singled-handedly created an "edit war" WP:EW with yourself. To date, you have violated no less than six Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:GAME, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EW, WP:PILLARS, WP:MINOR, WP:UPOLICY) while editing the article and talk page of Tyler Winklevoss and the article and talk page of Cameron Winklevoss.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalker56 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 October 2010

Happy. I'm fine with the info as it is now either way. As mentioned above, this was on the suggestion by The Yeti (talk). Also your accusations about "gaming the system" and whatever else you are accusing me of are unfounded. I also couldn't be happier that you're vigilant about non-deletion of info and am fine with the section as it stands now. Also, there is suspicion about multiple accounts being registered by you to influence the edits of certain pages. And one last thing, since you're clearly into guidelines, please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically under "Behavior that is unacceptable". BlueImpact (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further Irony. Let me remind you that a suggestion by The Yeti is just that, a suggestion. Please refer to Wikipedia conduct policies "Consensus" WP:CONS and section consensus building, namely "editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." Let me also remind you that you objected to my earlier edit that was in the spirit of The Yeti's suggestion, then proceeded to make a similar edit yourself, and then defend your unilateral actions by pointing back to The Yeti's suggestion. This is painful irony. Your behavior speaks for itself, no accusations necessary. Lastly, the only suspicion on this talk page is one that you levied, which Ricodecalo correctly pointed out to you is a violation of "Five Pillars" WP:FIVEPILLARS and Wikipedia behavior guidelines "Assume good faith" WP:GOODFAITH. Your breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines continue to grow. Please refrain from editing until you are prepared to follow them. Johnnywalker56 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Point? Not sure what you're ranting about as it is off-topic. Do you want to keep the info the way it is now or not? BlueImpact (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge-discussion procedure

   The two merge proposals (by same person?) on the 2 brothers' bio pages were botched by not specifying a common discussion page for the two intimately related matters. Nothing can proceed until someone determines whether there is any material covered on only one discussion page (or covered differently between them), non-destructively refactors producing a complete discussion on one talk page, strikes thru the duplicate discussion on the other, and links them so that everything is transparent. (I will undertake that task if no one else does, but not tonite.)
   (I have a number of comments to make in response to what appears on at one or the other, not least regarding the concurrent (and on its face competing) proposal to merge both bios to the company article. But making this more complicated, or rather trying for a globally correct procedure, can wait until we are procedurally repair the initial mistake and its effects.)
--Jerzy•t 04:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've constructed an AFAIK undocumented type of Diff page, for Talk:Tyler Winklevoss, Talk:Cameron Winklevoss; if you don't understand it immediately, please stop worrying about how i did it, and focus on what it appears on its face to be rather than asking pointless questions here. If you don't believe me on trust, please find some difference or match between Talk:Cameron Winklevoss and Talk:Tyler Winklevoss that you think is misrepresented, and then rethink the two-article diff's purpose, with an agenda of figuring out what mistake you made, about what that purpose is: i've never run into a real problem before, using this technique. (And BTW, it represents what was different before i added the contribution that i am now typing -- not what is different at the time you look at the talk pages.)
   Offhand, my impression is that the discordance between the two is a serious screwup, and that my message at the top of this section is more urgent than i imagined and hoped.
   Finally, for the record, this message appears on the "Cameron" tk-pg, but not on the "Tyler" one, bcz the corresponding ("Cameron") article appears to be the one for the brother with more WP-worthy info available. I suggest that here (Talk:Cameron Winklevoss be the talk page where we aim at consolidating the Winklevoss-related merge/split discussion.
--Jerzy•t 05:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)