User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/009

Brexx

As I have already explained to Kww, you are wrong this time. I just restored those edits cause they said the thrut. Kww has already restored my edits. Angel (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

just FYI. I added AngelCrying and Loveableone to the initial list of checks for you base don your report additions. I personally don't think either are socks of Brexx, possibly of each other though, or another banned sock master. The checks will verify though. It does get diffacult to determine socks at times, so it's good that you included your reports just in case, but be aware, when the acused find out, they can sometimes get nasty about it, especailly if they aren't a sock, they don't realize it's not a big deal if they are innocent Alan - talk 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right that there are different sock masters. The editing patterns of these users are somehow peculiar though, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more connections than can be seen at first glance. Communication behaviour (above) may be another indicator.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I definately see the pattern you are referring to, almost identical between the two, but Brexx is very easy to pick out, because he uses the same accounts to edit the same articles over and over, and uses very distinct edit summaries (when he uses them at all). I had this same exact thing you're picking up on jsut two days ago with a user account and two ip's.. one ip turned out to be coincidence, but another user account was found by the invesitagtion and they were all banned for sockpuppetry.. so I was right, except with one IP, and I didn't even catch that other username as part of it. It gets really hard when it's just ip's, cause they may not be static.. So I do a whois to see if it's a proxy or direct IP.. Proxy servers wouldn't need to be used by someone who isn't trying to hide or get around a ban.. that's a huge tip off for brexx ip's (plus he always uses ip's from UAE) Alan - talk 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference to false flag in 9-11 article

Please restore my reference to false flag motivation in the 9-11 article. You stated that there are other reasons given by conspiracy theorists for involvement by third parties in the attacks, but I am aware of none. Certainly it is the most significant - if there are any others. Without any motivation for third party involvement, any involvement is meaningless. JLMadrigal (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Describing the event as a false flag operation assumes that the main motivation of those who organized it would be to wage war in the Middle East and curtail civil liberties. There are, among those who disagree with the 9/11 Commission Report, different opinions about whether this is the case. I'm not against expanding the section in the 9/11 attacks article, but we need to be as precise as possible. I'm also not sure if "false flag" operation is the predominant term that is being used to describe this concept with regard to 9/11, "inside job" would probably be more prominent among those who suspect non-al Qaeda involvement, and reliable sources have not used the term "false flag" either when referring to these views. We also should avoid jargon, when possible.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some final comments?

So, you contradict yourself, while saying that my arguments are not well thought through?!?And since when do you need independent sources to know somebodies opinion? Don't they know their opinion best themselves? That wasn't very well thought through either. I think it would be better if you keep your comments to the article and the topic, and not other editors, if for no other reason that sheer ironic overload. Can wee agree on that, at least? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"And since when do you need independent sources to know somebodies opinion?" - We do not need independent sources to know someone's opinion, but without an independent reliable source reporting on it, the opinion is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.

Per WP:Reliable sources, news sources are preferable to opinion pieces (which can be used under certain conditions, as explained on the policy page). As there are numerous news sources reporting on the issue at hand, i.e. on 9/11 conspiracy theories, an opinion piece is not acceptable here, because we should use the best sources that are available, of course.

I will continue to point out logical fallacies in your arguments, if necessary, so I'm afraid that we probably will not be able to agree on what you suggest.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously news sources are preferable. So find a news source, then. Good luck finding a news source that discusses conspiracy theories. :) Or are you in fact claiming that the statement in the article is incorrect? You was asked this, and didn't answer. But you didn't replace the source with a better one, instead you claimed that the source was a bad source and should be removed because the author was conservative, which of course is complete nonsense.

You are of course welcome to point out logical fallacies that others make, even though your arguments are full of them. But it looks a bit silly, just so you know. But since you now to not discuss editors and keep away from personal comments, I'll have trouble in assuming good faith in your future personal comments towards other editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need any source there, because the section is a summary of the sub-article. You can find the news sources there. If you want to create more links to Cinnamon Stillwell's texts on the net, please use your own website.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you fail in assuming good faith, and also imply that I'm conservative, which is an insult. That breaks Wikipedias rules. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Message from Turian

One more stunt like that and I will report you and your friend to arbitration/AN. You were topic banned before, and I will seek an indefinite topic ban if you don't learn when to give up. –Turian (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the other user that you are probably talking about is not my friend. Second, having the last word in a discussion and then closing the discussion is bad style, and is not in agreement with our policies.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR. You are hindering the process of Wikipedia with your belligerent fringe POV pushing. Someone has to put an end to it. If it won't be me, then it will be an administrator or ArbCom. –Turian (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reported your behavior and have requested for sanction enforcement. –Turian (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories edit

Hello Cs32en, You recently removed a line from this article that was the result of extended negotiations. Please visit here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Reinstating_text_per_policy_based_consensus to see a proposed revision to address your concerns. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Re AE petition as mentioned in WT

Hi Cs32en, The Washington Times source explicitly states 1000 Architects and Engineers, the wording in the article is not based in the use of the word 'peers'. I have notified OpenFuture of the applicability of discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Do you have objections to the wording that was reverted by OpenFuture just now? Unomi (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Would you please note your changes on the talk page, and explain why you removed this material? Your edit summaries say "tendentious," "misleading", "no source" and one is just a plain removal without justification. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think this would be necessary, but I'll do so, now that you've asked.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked sources and improved on the wording so hopefully you will now find it acceptable. Stellarkid (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some remaining/new issues. I'll address them.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

sock puppetry

do you have any good reasons to assume i have two accounts? either way, i can assure you i don'tJigglyfidders (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are good reasons to determine whether your account Jigglyfidders is a legitimate account. I have given the reasons that led me to file the sockpuppet investigation at the SPI page. You may want to explain the observations that I have provided to clarify the situation.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

i have NOT got a clue who that HaireDunya character is. If you're saying that that is me then you are mistaken sorry. Do you mind telling me what makes you think that that person is me? Do we have something in common? a sense of humour maybe? lol; thanks for your concern but you will hopefully drop your suspicions of me, thanks you Jigglyfidders (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Book cite

Template:Infobox Book cite has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree May have had some kind of useful purpose, but I can't remember why I have created it, actually.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In good faith?

Hi Cs32en. I would like to ask you about the following remark you directed at me on an article's talk page:

"I'm rather baffled by the fact that your only contributions to the encyclopedia in the last few months have been to make edits to this particular article and to its talk page."

I'd be grateful if you could help me see how this discussion point was made in good faith or for that matter, what it has to do with the article discussion where it was posted. I'm rather new to Wikipedia editing so any policy insights from a more veteran editor such as yourself would be greatly appreciated. --Phiont (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have written "surprised" rather than "baffled". I have seen a number of new users. I haven't seen a new user who edits nothing else other than a single piece of content of a single article over a timespan of several months yet, so I am surprised. Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and Wikipedia:Consensus are important aspects of Wikipedia's policies. The pages are all linked - directly or indirectly - from the RfC tag on the talk page of the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the policy links. I looked through them and saw nothing that encouraged commenting about a fellow user's editing record on an article's discussion page. --Phiont (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As you have now read the policy pages, including Wikipedia:Consensus, what is, in your view, the consensus that has emerged in the RfC discussion on the issue?  Cs32en Talk to me  09:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can show me what this has to do with the personal matter I came here to discuss then please take such questions to the applicable article's talk page.--Phiont (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth logo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 04:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On WP:NONENG

Hi, I just noticed you had added something to the Gaza flotilla article and I wanted to try to explain my removal nicely. WP:NONENG recommends against the use of non-English sources unless they provide novel information, etc. I'm not out and out against using the document, but perhaps a machine translation could be included, attribution and quoting attempted, and a demonstration that the source is providing something not found in the English sources. Not trying to be a pain, --Nosfartu (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note! I have already left a comment on the talk page. (I may have chosen nicer words there if I had seen your comment here - on the other hand, you could of course have contacted me before removing the text.) I'll add the German sentences that I have used to the reference. The writer of the text has written it on behalf of the newspaper, so it should be treated as emanating from a reliable source and thus would not need attribution. However, I'll add the attribution now.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Next time I'll try to contact you first, given 1RR on the article. I won't be looking at it again for awhile, but I think the machine translation would also be useful for a reader trying to get a better idea of what the whole source said as well. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd suggest to continue any further discussion (with regard to the substance of the issue) on the article's talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

thoughts

I don't agree with your deletions of the titled professorships, but for the moment am too busy to get into a back and forth about it. First -- your explanation makes no sense to me. It's promotional? How so? Is the effect to get Dershowitz a new and better job? Second -- it's relevant, just as the difference between Associate Professor and Professor is relevant. A chaired position is clearly something that distinguishes one professor from another. We don't say "gosh, let's not mention that he is a professor, one can click through to read that (unless they are reading a printout, which is possible). Reflecting the chaired position makes sense IMHO for the same reason that reflecting the Professor title makes sense -- in fact, it is part of his title, and to only mention "Professor" is to truncate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• "brandishing credentials", a great phrase, and another reason why Wikipedia is failing. I agree w/your deletion of the verbiage; the article is better w/out it. KeptSouth (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! My reasoning is as follows: We should add information about the people we are referring to if they are relevant for understanding the content of the article and allow the reader to determine how important a given opinion is. Thus, informing the reader that someone is a professor at Harvard (and not at college Ihaveneverheardabout in Whatwasthenameofthattown) is important, stating that someone holds a specific chair at a university is not, generally speaking.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid: Quote from The Guardian

So we meet again

Hello again :-) Just wanted to note my recent edit was in response to a subject on talk. I like the wording you proposed actually. You might just leave a rationale on talk so there is a record of discussion. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the message! I've described my viewpoint on the article's talk page. Cheers.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a peek?

See: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Does_this_edit_add_POV.3F

Could you add your thoughts and let me know if my logic is reasonable? Zuchinni one (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the message! I've described my viewpoint on the article's talk page. Cheers.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violation of the 1RR at Gaza flotilla raid. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 07:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tariqabjotu! Did you block me for this edit? I thought that I had resolved the issue with the editors, and that I have contributed constructively towards building consensus after realizing that I had not seen an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Please let me know if this edit is the one that you are considering as problematic, or if there are any other edits that you consider being inappropriate.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, and your revert half an hour earlier that seemed to be on an unrelated issue. So I'm not sure how the resolution of one explains the reverting away (not that I care too much whether you were able to resolve any dispute via edit-warring). -- tariqabjotu 07:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification! I hope that you do not actually think that I would have attempted to resolve any disagreements related to these edits through edit-warring. As far as I can see, I have resolved them by steering away from edit warring (my comments at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Does this edit add POV?). Both reverts are, and I hope that you would agree, not related to pushing a personal point of view. As for the first revert, I – and this of course if my subjective interpretation – was implementing a policy (or a customary standard) regarding summaries of the article content in lead section of articles and lead paragraphs of section. (Just noticed that "iisraeli" needs to be changed to "Israeli" in the restored text, originally inserted by someone else, of this edit.) As for the second revert, I changed "survivors" to "participants", which I considered to be a neutral term. While the source actually uses "survivors", the term "witnesses" has ultimately been chosen. I think that an overly strict interpretation of the revert guideline may not be the best way to achieve a constructive editing atmosphere, or to achieve the purposes set out in the blocking policy, but I accept that you have chosen to apply the rules in this way. I would offer to practice a zero revert restriction for a week on Gaza flotilla raid, as a means of getting more fully accustomed to the specific restrictions in this topic field, if you would unblock my account based on this condition.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Tariqabjotu, who has blocked my account, has not edited for about an hour, and I don't know whether he has read my comment above. I have actually done two (unrelated) reverts in 24 hours. In these edits, I have not tried to insert or delete anything based on my personal view with regard to the content of the article, but rather based on what I assumed to be established policies. (I have explained the circumstances of these edits in the comment above.) I realize that this was the wrong approach. I have immediately begun to participate in building consensus after the second revert, when other editors told me about the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Could another administrator have a look at the situation and consider removing or shortening the block, maybe based on the suggestion in my comment above.}}