Please read Wikipedia:No original research: anything that you post simply because you did it or saw it done is prohibited. If the National Park Service posts it on a website, that's different: simply reference it properly, and it will stand, but your own research (or mine, too; it's not just you) is unacceptable. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Alatna River, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The map of which you speak is indeed a reliable source, but it is too low-resolution to use for the information that you're trying to put in (not to mention that it doesn't label Allakaket or any other community with legible letters), and anyway you continue to post text beginning with "I just canoed the Alatna River..." — blatant original research. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Alatna River, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hamsamich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You know, the information on the Alatna River up on Wikipedia is incorrect and Nyttend doesn't care about the safety issues. People use this information, and it was one of the reasons we ran out of food on the Alatna River recently. Fine if you don't want my information or the NPS sites info (because the info now on Wiki is wrong and NPS has agreed per phone com and email), but take the incorrect info off of Wiki. It gives Wiki a bad name, and except for Nyttend, who is playing games with me, it is a great site. Using an NPS map IS NOT ORIGINAL research. Getting verification from NPS due to a vague NPS website entry IS NOT ORIGINAL research. My treatment by Nyttend has been unfair and he should be under review as an administrator.
Decline reason:
None of this explains why you continued to add personal anecdotes (such as [1]) to the article; Wikipedia is not a place to post a personal narrative about your travels, and the content you were attempting to add did in fact appear to be original research. At the least, you were edit warring in that you were repeatedly adding the same information without attempting to provide a reliable source for it. A book, website, printed guide, etc. is a reliable source... personal communication via e-mail or phone is not. Please discuss the issue on the talk page of the article when your block expires. --Kinu t/c 04:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hamsamich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The email is NOT THE INFORMATION, as I have already said, it is CLARIFICATION OF THE VAGUE MILAGE THE WEBSITE GIVES. Plus I used the GATES OF ARCTIC MAP to verify the milage, which is a printed source, and not the same on on the website. And on my LAST EDIT I DID NOT put up a personal anecdote. You don't answer any of my questions, only pose your own agenda. How about trying to give my viewpoint a little credit? I listened to Nyttend and changed my edit. Once again, I changed my edit, but was blocked anyway, and it was a different edit, so Nyttend either didn't look at it or just decided to block me because he thought it would be fun. All you do is ask me why I am doing things you consider to be wrong, yet none of you want to fix what is a glaring error on the Alatna River entry. So I tried to fix the way I wrote the info, but Nyttend blocked me. You take none of this into consideration. What I did was contact NPS to get a clarification of what the information on the NPS website meant, THIS IS NOT PERSONAL INFORMATION, JUST A CLARIFICATION FROM NPS ON WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS. If Nyttend wanted to be helpful and not inciteful he would have investigated the NPS website and rewrote the entire entry, but all he did was delete my post and leave the incorrect information up there. Why am I continualy picked on, and why isn't the information on WIKI NOW that is incorrect AND NOT from the NPS website changed? You still have incorrect information that could cause people problems up on the Alatna river. This isn't a game. This is obviously an administrator power play and not helpful blocking. For instance, you used other entries besides my last entry to show me what I did wrong, yet my last correction wasn't even considered, even though this is the one I was blocked on. The bottom line is these are NOT personal annecdotes, just the way I wrote the information was. Are you two in this together? I want another administrator who will at least try to look at things from my point of view, which is to get the correct information up NOW and stop playing this game. You two have not answered any of my questions and have only focused on a few important aspects, ignoring many others. Sure I will stop the personal style writing. If someone will help me get the correct information up there I would be greatful. Anybody? The Rangers have told me more than one group has been down the Alatna this year unprepared due to their vague website and the misquotes of other websites. But they are unsure of the exact milage and how to fix the website so quickly. Does anybody care about this aspect of WIKI, which is to get the correct info on the site?
Decline reason:
See below as to the block reasoning. Your block is only 24 hours and it would probably be best if you use that time to read up on some Wikipedia basic policies, such as those linked above. Calm down, and when you return, see what you can do to adjust your approach. As for the info, I'm going to see what I can turn up independently. We do want to get the information right if we can, but we also have to recognize that Wikipedia has to rely on the writings of others for its information. Mangojuicetalk 20:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
For reference, It looks like you posted a semi-personal anecdote here, characterized by the phrase "I just canoed...", which was reverted. You re-posted the same information here, here, and here. You then posted a one-line notation that the cited distances are wrong, and provided an alternate figure here, which was reverted. You re-posted it here. If the distance is wrong, that's one thing - but, quite honestly, you've overreacted a little bit. Edits such as this and this are unacceptable, whatever the circumstance. You'll get much farther, and have a much better experience on this website, if you take a deep breath and calm down. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- For now, I have marked the article as disputed. When your block expires (or when you are unblocked), you are welcome to make your case at the appropriate talk page. For the record, I wouldn't oppose unblocking you if you promise to calm down and use the appropriate venue instead of edit warring. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hamsamich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wow, reasonable people. Thank you. Yes, I have calmed down quite a bit, but the way Nyttend handled the situation was part of the cause. He edit-warred with me instead of trying to find a suitable fix/truce by continuing to delete my post, yet nobody seems to get this part of it. I appreciate the dispute mark. That's all I wanted. Hey, I already admitted I was wrong, yet Nyttend and SOME other administrators continue to push this thing without acknowledging my concerns, only their own. I only want the correct information up there and didn't mean to get into a war with Nyttend, but the way he dealt with me was terrible. He spent all the time deleting my post and inciting the war (which I did as well), but he is supposed to be the administrator/good guy. He needs some help or something. And I would like some satisfaction here. He could have reworded my article or put a disputed tab on it himself, but he chose to incite me with the deletions and pat answers. I will not tolerate incorrect data here where it could cause damage to people who may go down that river with so badly incorrect data, it is getting colder by the day in that area, but still early enough to attract visitors. Inexperienced people will attempt the Alatna and the Rangers don't have time to instruct everyone/ensure proper outfitting. All you have to do is pay your money and fly into Bettles, get a canoe and talk to the Ranger. People aren't always honest with Rangers. If this were any other article I would have no problem waiting, but as I have already said numerous times, this is a safety issue, and not one administrator has tried to understand this until now maybe, thank you Mike and Mango. As long as we can let people know there is a problem with the data (which would only take 10 seconds to verify if you go to the NPS website under Wild and Scenic Rivers and see that is says "83 miles" but does not specify what this means), then I will not try to correct the mistake again until somebody says it is ok. This is such an easy thing to fix and I would have worked with Nyttend if he would have worked with me, but all he did was keep deleting my posts. I feel silly writing so much about this small and easy to fix issue, yet it is important, and the satisfaction/help has been slow in coming until now.
Decline reason:
Already reviewed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- A little elaboration on the issue. I think I understand now, but the problem here was that you were very pushy about trying to post your personal experience about the river in the article. Nyttend was right about that, it doesn't belong there. As for the map source you quote, I can't look at it myself, but my belief (based on other maps I've looked at) is that it simply shows the river and has a map scale, and you estimated the river at 140 miles based on the map. That's really not a reliable source either. Now, if that had been your first post, I doubt that Nyttend would have bothered reverting. But in the meantime you got so agitated and yelled at him so much that he became quite reasonably suspicious. This never would have happened if your approach hadn't been so belligerent. That said, our approach could have been more welcoming. But your unblock request here still misses the point -- it's about your extreme agitation and aggression in trying to force the changes you want. Wikipedia can't work in that kind of atmosphere, which is ultimately why it's appropriate that you were blocked. Mangojuicetalk 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hamsamich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you, you made my point for me. Nyttend was so worried about me that he did not do the right thing concerning the Alatna River entry. Yes I was wrong and I will not act like this again, how many times do I need to say that? But he cast the first stone by just deleting my post without any explanation or rewriting. I then got irrate because he failed to understand the gravity of the issue with his pat answers and straight up deletions (this river is not easy, you have to be prepared). I got belligerent due to the actions of Nyttend and his failure to fix the article and his failure to see the importance. If he would of tempered his negative actions toward me with some concern for correcting the information I would have been fine. But that didn't happen. He's the one with admin power, and he DID NOT try to work with me. Misses the point huh? If I find another incorrect article that has safety implications you better believe I will act hastily and aggresively to get it changed, and I hope to have the help of an administrator next time right off the bat. Nobody has even addressed this issue. This is why I got so upset. I think this is the 4th time I have said this. It is valid and needs to be talked about. Maybe you don't agree with me but I was there, I know the conditions. I will go about it differently next time I find a problem, but if I am treated like Nyttend treated me again I will feel the same way, and get other admin involved. What he did was wrong and unproffesional. That being said, I will once again say I was part of the problem. Hopefully I don't have to say it again. Sorry I am a bit caustic, but you are the only one who is even seeing my side of things, how many administrators did that take? Anyway thanks again mango, I read the Alatna article and that will suffice. At least the wrong data is not still up there. And I don't agree with you about the map, it is a good map and would be a useful approx for this site, as long as it was stated as approx, it is very different from the one on the website. But if you don't like it I won't put it up there.
Decline reason:
I see nothing improper about the way Nyttend handled this; you were given numerous warnings, Nyttend cited our WP:OR policy in the first few reverts. You chose to continue adding unsourced info after a final warning, and were given a relatively short block. If and when the park fixes the info on their site (or another reliable source can be found, the entry can be updated with the appropriate info. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The map of which you speak is indeed a reliable source, but it is too low-resolution to use for the information that you're trying to put in (not to mention that it doesn't label Allakaket or any other community with legible letters), and anyway you continue to post text beginning with "I just canoed the Alatna River..." — blatant original research From Nyttend. THIS IS NOT TRUE, THE MAP IS NICE AND HUGE AND DOES LABLE ALLAKAKET. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT MAP.
Hamsamich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Nothing about the safety issues again, not surprised. Does ANYBODY want to address my concern? How many administrators have I asked? Don't worry, this is the last time I will ask. So I've been using and editing WIKI for years now and this is my first problem, not always under hamsamich. Does anybody get this?? If you don't want to answer my question about the safety issue, then please, just ignore me. This would be much more respectful. Let's see how many administrators ignore it. so you see nothing wrong with what nyttend did? he focused on me and not the information, leaving blatently inaccurate data on wiki after he was warned it was incredibly bad? most of you administrators just stick together i see. I know what your policy was, but the incorrect data could have caused big problems, something a bit bigger than policy at least in this case. there are no facilities down the Alatna, no food, no medical care, no phones, no people usually. fine, I'll stop because this obviously will get me nowhere, nobody cares. I tried. at least mango fixed things so they are safe.
Decline reason:
You're abusing the unblock template; you don't get to keep asking until you get what you want. Further unblock requests will result in an extension of the original block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Though "truth" sounds like a wonderful heuristic, at first, it's very difficult to run a collaborative encyclopedia on that principle -- everyone has a different idea of what "truth" means, and it is often difficult to resolve disagreements on that basis. Therefore, Wikipedia's golden standard is not truth, but verifiability, in order to reduce infighting and limit the ability of cranks to push opinions (I'm not at all accusing you of being a crank, but I hope you can understand how vulnerable we would be to that sort of manipulation if anyone could post information just by saying "it's true!"). If you truly believe the current information distributed by the National Park Service is dangerous, I would think your first port of call should be the NPS? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That's real great, you don't keep to get asking for what you want. Ok, hmmmm. Yet I'm blocked so I can't use all the other stuff she advised on. Thanks jamie, that is a great idea. So, I can't contact the admisistrators now, because I'm not allowed to appeal the unblock since most of the other ways to contact wiki are now blocked, and now I'm not allowed to appeal the unblock. This is getting funny. And I have another administrator who thinks I haven't contacted the NPS yet. I see people are really listening to me. Why do I keep doing this? Hoping to find someone who might get it. The last sentence there by Luna, although she seems nice, really sums up my problem with this whole nightmare. Nobody listens, cares, or they really just want to pull the power card. I don't know which, but certain administrators are easier to guess about. At least mango did the right thing. I'm pretty happy about that but now a morbid sense of curiosity casuses me to see how deep this rabbit hole goes! The safety issue WAS the belief of this website that the Alatna was only 85 miles long. My issue now was the way Nyttend ignored that, amongst other things, yet nobody cares.
- The content of the edits is immaterial, at this point - the problem, and one which you continually refuse to acknowledge, is that you repeatedly re-inserted the material into the article. What should have happened is that you, once reverted the first time, should have posted on the article's talk page "Hey, the article says X, but I was there and it's actually Y..." and then Nyttend or someone else would have discussed the matter in a calm fashion - and, quite honestly, the article would probably be more accurate now. But by continuing to re-insert the material, it becomes less about what you're adding to the article and more about the disruption that those edits are causing. In addition, you were fairly incivil when you attempted to discuss the matter with Nyttend. You have now requested unblocking 5 times, each time blaming Nyttend for your error; your requests are essentially the same, which is why yor talk page is in danger of being protected rom editing; each time you post an unblock template, you ask a new admin to review the situation, which is just about the same as keeping asking until you get what you want. Again, take a deep breath, step away from the computer, and please be more careful when your block expires. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ultra - I already acknowledged I was wrong have you read my posts? One thing at a time so we don't get confused, but it is very frustrating to be accused of "continually refusing to acknowledge" when it is obvious in my above posts that I have ack. by admitting I was wrong. Can I get some truce action here, or will I continue to be bombarded? I'm not even getting met 10% of the way here if you accuse me of things that arent true.
- It's all too easy to get bogged down in a dispute; the question immediately at hand, I think, is what you plan to do on Wikipedia if unblocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
well, i wouldnt be going thru all this if i was that type of a person. there are easier ways to cause problems than this. funny how i answer one question, ask for satisfaction on it (the fact that ultra said untrue things about me) and the spotlight is switched to another negative aspect about me. is anyone but me going to help build the bridge here? I've already said what i would do in my previous posts. We keep going around in circles hear, back to things you want from me that I have already said, without focusing on what I actually said in my latest post. Can we stop doing that? One thing at a time. You answer mine, I'll answer yours. Is that fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.124.65 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- A fair request, although I should point out that I can't speak for Ultraexactzz and don't think I made the claims you're asking to have clarified (do correct me if I'm mistaken on that count). I personally am a bit more inclined to assume good faith and unblock, with the assumption that everybody will "play nice" moving forward. It seems to me that you understand the block rationale and are trying to get to know "the wiki way," so I'm not really sure what more we can ask for. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that works, too. Take care, Hamsamich. :) If I didn't already link these to you, I found the introduction and community portal pretty helpful when I was first getting started. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Take care. I think if I would have been dealing with you, mango and maybe one other right off the bat most of this wouldn't have happened. No, that doesn't mean I don't take PARTIAL responsibility for all this silliness. For the record, I truly was worried about people using the badly inaccurate data contained on this site to go down this remote and possibly dangerous river. That is the only reason I started that war, although I went about it badly. If it would have been any other entry, I would have made a better entry and if struck down by an administrator just said "oh well". There are people out there that actually care you know...