User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2014/April

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Christie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fyi 2

Hello, Cwobeel. You have new messages at Writegeist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

@Writegeist: Thanks for the message. Just note that the first diff you list, was not a revert. That was adding content to the infobox, which was not there before... Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Like I said, I'm crap at this stuff! Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Writegeist: Totally confused here, my armadillo friend. I don't see the 3RR violation looking at the article history. In any case, I will be out most of the day anyway today. Just that a 3RR on my block log is not something I would be happy about when I did not breach it. Look forward to more edits later today when the block expires. Now, to my wikibreak! Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The contested fourth edit (restoring 'Canada' to the infobox) appears to have reverted this edit (itself of course a revert) made earlier the same day by the other user? I imagine it's still counted as a revert regardless of whether it was supported by consensus. Nevertheless, considering your hitherto block-free record, and noting the wriggle-room provided by 'normally' in 'Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours', I think Mitchell would have shown more smarts if he'd thought outside the box and warned you (and the other user) first, with a clear statement of intent to block if the reverting continued—it's not as if the content threatened to harm the subject of the BLP whether it was included or not. Unfortunately, and at the risk of repeating myself, common sense is not all that common here, at least not to any high degree. And some sysops have jerkier knees and itchier trigger-fingers than others. I look forward to seeing you back after your short break. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take it on the chin if needed be :) Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Only seems fair

I find it ironic that you spend the vast majority of your time on the project inserting a negative bias into the BLP's of Republican politicians, and then squeal when I enforce WP:verifiability on a Democratic politician's page.CFredkin (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You got it wrong again, which is not surprising, as you seem to be more interested in disruption than in collaboration. Read WP:V - WP:UNSOURCED:

Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Not sure if you're aware of this, but just in case you're not: [1]. How about that. Didn't go quite the way he wanted. Doesn't involve you per se, and if I were you I'd certainly stay out of it, but good to be aware of going forward. This editor has been behaving in such a way that a user RfC is ordinarily the only redress, and he is up to his old tricks in the Fort Lee lane closing article, but it may not get to that point. By the way, I hope you're still editing the Bridgegate article, as your good editing and wise counsel is certainly needed there! Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I will stay out of that AN/I discussion... Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Doug Ose Advertising

Cwobeel,

As I warned earlier on the alert page, I noted that User:Phonepaper is likely a sockpuppet acount for the other user who inserted these tendentious edits. The sources they cited as "secondary" sources were not, and were largely interviews with Ose in newspapers. I think that this user should be reported, considering they have persistently reverted User:DGG's edit that was supported by adequate evidence and that still maintained NPOV. For example for the Pledge of Allegiance claim made under the Congressional career section, they cited "http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/31/6280859/doug-ose-argues-his-record-is.html" and "http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/California/Doug_Ose/Bills/107/", with the former still being a primary source and the latter completely lacking mention of the item that the source was supposed to cite. I think that this page needs protection from this user and other potential advertisers of Ose, as you mentioned earlier to me on the BLP noticeboard. The edits by this user should be reverted, as they are blatantly advertising, as DGG had mentioned as well.

→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 03:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

Give me a hand there. Phonepaper keeps adding the same material sourced to an ad by Ose. Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get them reported to an Admin or to ensure the page is protected as DGG left it? Otherwise it would seem like a cyclic edit war with more sockpuppets. →Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 03:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

@Hubbardc: I cleaned up the page and added some material and cites. I'll keep an aye on it. Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the only reason I reverted to the DGG edit is because I think there was at least some consensus on its neutrality. I am still a little hesitant about the veracity of some of this information. Would it possibly be safer to keep it at DGG's edit for the time being and start a discussion on the article talk page for Ose to settle any of their issues? That way we can be sure that all information is sound and maintains NPOV without the mindless edit wars from their sockpuppets, which will likely continue to happen unless the page maintains some edit stability..→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 03:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

I think it looks much better now. We shall see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Militia organizations in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Davidians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

http://northcarolinaslavenarratives.wordpress.com/north-carolina-slave-narratives-2/mitchner-patsy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.64.200 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

please see the article talk page on the Bundy standoff

I suggest there that we hive off a discussion of Cliven Bundy's personal views to a page about the man. The standoff can then be limited to discussion of the event itself. What do you think? I welcome your comments on the article talk page. 66.225.161.37 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin

I see you've encountered issues with User:CFredkin, as I have just found in the article on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Perhaps you'd like to have a look and comment on the discussion. Cheers, Wikidea 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. Cwobeel (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun control talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?" on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page.

• RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy standoff

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on the Bundy standoff article. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks or a page ban. All editors are also subject to WP:1RR at the article (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. These sanctions and the 1RR restriction will end on June 22, 2014. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions.

Tiptoety ^talk 22:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)