Talk:Glenn Hauman

April 2009 edit conflict

Nightscream deleted an edit because of "vandalism".

This is Wiki's definition:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

As you are the one censoring, YOU should explain how pointing to Hauman's website, in the section "other...", where his WEMASTERSHIP of SOME sites is mentioned, is vandalism.

Does that edit "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"? It obviously does not.

Is this adding an "obscenity of crude humor"? Obviously not.

Does it"insert nonsense into [the] article"? It is obviously not nonsense as defined in wiki.

Thus neither the primary definition, not the stated intent, nor any of the examples of vandalism are met by this edit. You claim vandalism when removing the edit, but can not demonstrate how the definition is met.

Thus, one must conclude that your interest is to prevent Hauman's own webpresence from being noted by those who merely read the article, without delving into associated links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.9.130 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism was not given as the rationale for the reversion of your April 7 edit regarding Hauman's webmaster activities, as you well know. Anyone who wishes to see the true rationale for the reversion can read the Edit Summary in the article's Edit History. That edit was reverted because, as I explained in that Edit Summary, it was unsourced POV material, and because we do not post our personal opinions or analyses in articles. I made this point to you in the message I left on your IP's Talk Page, in which I cited the Verifiability and Neutral Point of View policies that this edit violated. For your part, you were not able to refute this, nor did you even respond to it.

In my reversion of your second edit, on April 15, you added this material: <p>.

In your third edit on April 20, you again added that material, claiming "This edit IS NOT VANDALISM. It provides PERTINENT information in the correct section. YOU ARE CENSORING and should be reported." Obviously, adding those characters does not "add pertinent material", so I again reverted it, and by adding this twice, and claiming it was "pertinent", it appeared to me that you were attempting to be disruptive. I did not, however, refer to your first edit as vandalism. I did, however, cite the other policies that it violated, and asked you to explain how your addition of "<p>" provided "pertinent information".

Your only response to this was to claim, on your IP's Talk Page, "You removed an edit, and citing vandalism as the reason. Thus, the burden should be on you to prove why this is vandalism. The burden should NOT be on me to prove that this is NOT vandalism. I placed a comment about this in the proper talk page. Jus tbecause you are an administrator should not excuse you from the proof of your contention." I do not have "prove" anything. Adding a series of characters to an article for without any apparent purpose is self-evidently disruptive, and therefore, vandalism. If you want to content that those characters provide "pertinent information", then yes, the burden is indeed on you to do so, just as it is on you to source the information you added in your first edit, as indicated by WP:Burden. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, after all, and we are all expected to adhere to them.

Btw, I suggest you sign up for an account. Editors who intend to continue editing beyond one-time edits are expected to do so. It makes it easier for others to communicate with you. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your stated summary of events IS COMPLETELY untrue as to the second and third edits that you reverted. As to the first edit, on my own talk page I point out to the fact, that many others have complained about you using the POV justification to delete edits. HOWEVER, I am not referencing the first reversion you made, AND, as you are aware, I left it at that, seeing as it can be a grey area of opinion, as to what constitutes a statement of fact, and what is mere opinion.

BUT, the heart of the matter now is your reversion and deletion of my second and third edits, which had NOTHING to do with inserting a mere paragraph break.

You are being disingenuous here. While it is true, that wikipedia's verion history highlights only the <p> break in red, this is an error surely not overlooked by you. In fact, the SUBSTANCE of my edit was this entry:

"Hauman also maintains his own website at www.glennhauman.com". You KNEW this, even though you now pretend that my only insertion was the paragraph break. The truth to this claim here can be verified by READING the actual versions using the "previous" and "next" version links. In the version BEFORE my edit, the above line is not found, it is then found in my edit, and disappears when you revert. This happened TWICE. You could not possibly have overlooked this. As if I had nothing better to do than to care about a simple page break. It is NOT my fault that somehow wikipedia did not highlight in red the whole edit, but just the break.

And it is THIS substantive entry, which you deleted by claiming vandalism, as I clearly pointed out in my talk page entry (where I specifically referenced the pointer to the OTHER website (his own), which Hauman maintains).

One must wonder why you so obviously chose to focus on the paragraph break, when the real issue was indeed a pertinent piece of information that you kept removing, which is completion of the webpages with which Hauman is involved in the section where such pages are mentioned.

Okay, I looked over the Edit History again, and I don't know how I missed this the first time (or for that matter, the second time when composing my posts here), but somehow, I completely missed the mention of the website. Maybe I was fixated on the bold-red paragraph break, and I didn't even know then what it was, since on Wikipedia, lines are simply added to create new paragraphs, and colons used on Talk Pages for indentations. I apologize for that, and for the vandalism notices. I restored the mention of his website.

However, as far as your contention that "other" have complained about me using the NPOV policy to justify deletions, I do not know what you're referring to. In general, anyone who edits to any substantial degree, and for any substantial amount of time, on Wikipedia, is going to run into edit conflicts. This is normal. Pointing to one's history of edit conflicts with others in no way proves any point about the particular conflict at hand. In particular, I do not recall anyone complaining about my "using" the NPOV policy to justify deletions. I have, however, removed much unsourced material, as per WP:V and WP:BLP, which a few people, mostly those not acquainted with those policies, have been irritated about. Is this what you were referring to? If so, citing this hardly lends credence to the issue of Hauman's website, which was simply an oversight on my part, and not a case of "censorship", and again, I apologize for not seeing the material clearly enough, and for the vandalism warnings.

Btw, make sure you sign all your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. You can also distinguish your posts from those above by indenting them with colons. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Hauman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120125938/http://www.glennhauman.com/news/2009/04/17/helping-out-peter-david-and-bob-greenberger/ to http://www.glennhauman.com/news/2009/04/17/helping-out-peter-david-and-bob-greenberger/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glenn Hauman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321100208/http://hauman.malibulist.com/news/2005/03/10/20050310interviewed-in-the-real-jewish-controlled-media/ to http://hauman.malibulist.com/news/2005/03/10/20050310interviewed-in-the-real-jewish-controlled-media/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321100159/http://hauman.malibulist.com/news/2007/09/22/20070921it-wasnt-me/ to http://hauman.malibulist.com/news/2007/09/22/20070921it-wasnt-me/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721144816/http://www.psfs.org/events/guestinfo.php?gid=21 to http://www.psfs.org/events/guestinfo.php?gid=21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)