User talk:216.80.64.206

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop reverting the Video Journalism page. Your edits are not vandalism, but there are problems with them. First of all, you have no sources for what you say, and you portray video journalism in a very negative light (quasi-professional), something I do not think holds true. See WP:NPOV. Second problem is that you do not incorporate sources by previous editors. Third problem is that you ignore Wikipedia formatting. You are of course free to edit the article and if you are knowledgeable of the subject, please do so, but remember Wikipedia guidelines, especially NPOV and WP:V. Also, I should remind you that a user who reverts the same article more than three times in a short period of time can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, see WP:3RR. Mackan 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am more than knowledgeable on the subject. Are you?

No, not very. I took one course in Video Journalism at Ritsumeikan University, held by a practising video journalist but that's it. I don't want to scare away "knowledge" and I welcome you editing the article. But please read through the Wikipedia guidelines and please provide sources for your statements. If you are knowledgeable on the subject, I expect you have an idea of a proper encyclopedic "tone". Your edits are too opinionated and your only source is your own knowledge, which isn't very verifiable. Please, if you are going to edit the article further, please make sure you provide verifiable sources for what you say. Any further reverts might result in your IP getting banned/blocked from editing Wikipedia articles. Please try and co-operate. Mackan 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Great, but if you're violating WP:NPOV and WP:V currently; two of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Knowledge of the subject, which I'm sure you have, doesn't come into it. CloudNine 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Knowledge of the subject, which I'm sure you have, doesn't come into it." Are you joking? That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

I have knowledge on the subject. I have a bachelor's degree in Journalism, not just a class. Sorry, but you lose in this case. I'm a professonal, and I know more on the subject than you.

Do yourself a favor: do some research yourselves before claiming someone proficient and knowledgeable on the subject is "coming close" to "violating" some TOS somewhere.

Hey, I'm not claiming I have knowledge in the subject. However, your article is biased against video journalism and is not referenced; I don't need a degree in journalism to see that. If you don't agree to the three basic rules of Wikipedia, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, I'm not sure why you're editing here. It isn't a platform to voice your views against video journalism. CloudNine 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In case it was unclear to you, let me point out that the person who said ""Knowledge of the subject, which I'm sure you have, doesn't come into it" and the person who has taken a class in journalism (me) are not the same people. You are starting to come off as pretty stupid. If you can't support your statements with sources, they aren't worth anything. How fucking hard do you think it is for just anybody to edit an article to his/her own liking and then claim they have a BA in whatever subject? I'm not saying you are doing just that, but if you don't think this sufficiently illustrates the need for verifiable sources, you can't be very clever. If you have studied video journalism, surely you must have access to printed (or online, either is good) sources supporting your claims? Please try and be more co-operative. This is the internet pal, anybody can suggest anything without any other evidence than "I know this". We need the sources. Mackan 08:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, the use of that language is uncalled for. I do, indeed, know how easy it is to claim I've got a degree in journalism. Unfortunately for you, claiming it's "easy to do" doesn't make it any less real.

Second, I've deleted two paragraphs that are simply NOT true. Instead of making very loosely-based assumptions, I suggest you fully educate yourselves on the subject, cite your sources, and THEN begin editing. There have been a vast number of formats and techniques that have appeared since journalism even began. Simply stating that the system is spreading because of "changed technology" is not true, as anyone in the business will tell you.

I will further add that the BBC is not supporting video journalism. The vast, vast majority of journalists at the BBC are, indeed, NOT "video journalists."

I have friends at the BBC who have educated me on that point. While I cannot back that up in an internet forum, YOU cannot back up numbers and assumptions about such a news outlet simply because you took a journalism class.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Further editing of the article will force me to simply keep editing, and I guess we'll keep going back and forth like a couple of kids.

Misterjones, I did not write the article and I'm not really defending the way it is, I'm only saying the article was better off without your edits (mostly because of the negative light you chose to portray VJ in). I'm not making any loosely based assumptions and there's no need for you to tell me what I've been trying to tell you for a long time: PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES! Also, what the hell is "Unfortunately for you, claiming it's "easy to do" doesn't make it any less real" supposed to mean? Why would it be unfortunate for me that you have a degree in Journalism? You do come off as rather childish, you know. Mackan 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When I take a closer look at your edits to the article, I must ask why you removed this part: ""Growth in video journalism coincides with changes in video technology and the cost of this technology. As broadcast quality cameras and editing systems have become smaller and available at a fraction of their previous costs, the single operator method has spread."" What is so unacceptable about this part? How can you possibly deny that changes in technology have made VJ a lot more affordable, isn't that pretty obvious? My prof stressed this was the biggest reason for VJ's recent growth (but no, it wasn't me who originally put it in the article). Mackan 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, your "friends at the BBC" can't be very up to date, are they? Have a look at this press release from the BBC[1]. You're more and more coming off as a random troll. You have no sources and at a closer scrutiny, everything you say seems to be wrong. Not that it is particularly trollish removing that bit (as it was unsourced), but the whole act of pretending you have friends at the BBC "who have educated me on that point. While I cannot back that up in an internet forum..." seems rather ridiculous. Is that how you win arguments, usually? "I have a friend whose dad works at X and he says that...". Mackan 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
...What was your idea behind blanking my user page? That is considered vandalism and could very possibly get you banned. I will assume you made a mistake but please make sure you don't repeat that sort of behaviour. Mackan 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, mental-midget, did you read the DATE on that press release? Here, I've cut-and-pasted it for you:

Date: 01.07.2005

How hilarious is it that YOU'RE telling ME that my "friends" aren't up to date? Get a clue. You obviously don't have one.

Is that how YOU win arguments? "I have a hyperlink, so nyaah." Ooo, impressive!

[edit] User pages

Please do not vandalize others' user pages with abusive messages, as you did here. You're welcome to use user talk pages to leave messages for other editors, and you're welcome to contribute constructively and in a way that is consistent with our core policies, which include Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and most importantly, Civility and No personal attacks. The only way we're able to maintain Wikipedia is through the willingness of volunteers to work together respectfully.

If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, I encourage you to share your knowledge with the world by providing accurate, sourced material, and by helping remove material that's erroneous or not properly verifiable. I would also encourage you to get an account, as it makes it easier to keep track of one's edits. Thank you for understanding that this resource works when contributors are willing to communicate with each other cooperatively and politely. Please let me know if you have any questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, your reply is basically, "he started it"? That's not very impressive. Is blanking his user page supposed to solve the problem, or somehow make anything better? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from User:Mackan. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. The Rambling Man 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CloudNine 10:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message for this user

Hi. I've left you a message at User talk:Mister-jones. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)