This user has been on the English Wikipedia for 15 years, 8 months and 19 days.
This user has been on the German Wikipedia for 18 years, 5 months and 27 days.
<11,000
This user has made fewer than 11,000 edits.
This user may have a strong personal viewpoint on some issues, but strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on encyclopedic content about controversial topics.
This user, as a general rule, will ignore questions about their real life.
On February 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dresden Without Nazis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It's not easy to find an English source specifically stating that governments all over the world called for an international investigation, as news searches tend to produce hundreds of hits related to the various governments and international institution that call for such an investigation. If someone finds an English-language source that can be used instead of the German source, I'd be happy to replace the German source with the English-language source, of course. In my view, as it's about a few words, a verbatim translation is not necessary. I'd provide such a translation, however, if you or any other editor would ask for it. Cs32enTalk to me15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Actually, editors are encourage to look for English-language sources. So if an equally usable website is being found, I'd support replacing the existing source. As it's not possible to prove that no English-language source exists, the question of whether a non-English source should be used or not becomes relevant when an English-language source is actually being found. Cs32enTalk to me20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:EdLake raised an issue with this edit of yours removing Primary source content from the article. Please review his argument on his talk page and engage in discussion at the appropriate venue. I think the edit is within Wikipedia policy, but since you are the one who had issue with it I believe it is only proper to let you look into it as well. Thanks. N419BH14:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the only link made by the Sunday herald of the spy ring to 9/11 is that "Two other Israelis connected to the art ring showed up in Fort Lauderdale. At one time, eight of the hijackers lived just north of the town." I think this is an extremely weak link with 9/11... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Does it really belong in the article? Marokwitz (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains the following sentences:
The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted “according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells”.
The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams.
A report by French intelligence contends that the agents were spying on leaders of the 9/11 hijackers, thus indicating that they may have been able to obtain advance knowledge of the attacks. Also, reliable sources have reported on suspicions that the individuals who reportedly enjoyed watching the event from New Jersey may have had advance knowledge. (A different set of suspicions is that they may have been involved themselves.) Maybe the wording of the article's content needs to be improved, I have not cross-checked what would be essential information from the article, and we need to avoid presenting things outside of the context in which reliable sources report on them. Cs32enTalk to me14:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. The text in the article should be rephrased, since it was not clear how the art students have anything to do with 9/11. The report saying that the terrorists lived in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells should be mentioned there. The connection wasn't immediately clear to me even after I read the sources. Marokwitz (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi, to my ears "corporativism" sounds less familiar, but I ran google to get a sense; (1) Corporativism: 49,000 results ; (2) corporatocracy: 57,000 results ; and (#) Corporatism: 869,000 hits BUT this third option is taken by a wikipedia entry of a very different flavor, emphasis, and mix of topics. So I think we need to use (2) (or else the only other option is to move the entry currently under "corporatism" to something else like "history of corporate thought in religion, culture, politics..." and then use the "newly available" entry of corporatism for what is currently "corporatocracy" ...I wanted to like "corporativism" but it's not quite right sounding in English (possibly just because it's very rarely used) and also the social studies Textbook link in books.google.com used the term "corporatocracy", so...sound reasonable? Harel
"Corporatocracy" and "Corporativism" are two different concepts, and "Corporatism" is a popular term for "Corporativism". I wouldn't use Google hits. Not being a native English speaker, I don't really want to get into this debate. Cs32enTalk to me08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza flotilla raid: Sabotage
Hi Cs32en,
I made some minor wording changes to your new sabotage section. I've detailed them in the talk section here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Sabotage. I don't think its anything controversial, but I just wanted to let you know.
Thank you for leaving the note here! I agree with the change from "stated" to "hinted". The Houston Chronicle article, the second source for the sabotage of ships in the past, only deals with the 1988 incident. It therefore does not contradict the UPI information. UPI says: "The Israelis have sabotaged Palestinian ships in the past. In 1988, frogmen planted limpet mines on a Greek ferry, the Solphrini, which sank in Limassol harbor in the Greek-controlled sector of Cyprus," and the additional source deals with the second sentence of the UPI report. Cs32enTalk to me13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joachim Gauck
"Labor camp" sounds like an inappropriate negationist term and was indeed the term used by Stalin. Do you have any reliable sources that establish that the Gulags were not concentration camps? I have numerous reliable sources that establish that the Gulags were concentration camps (for instance Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History of the Soviet Concentration Camps, London, 2003) (and the Gulag category is included in the concentration camp category as well).
Content that merely duplicates existing content and that is too detailed for the introduction gets removed. His father's experiences are dealt with in detail in the Life in East Germany section.
Frankly, I don't find a single English source that refers to Joachim Gauck's father being sent to a "labor camp". English language sources refer to it as "Soviet Gulag"[1], "a Gulag"[2], "the Siberian gulag"[3], "the Gulag in Siberia"[4], "the Gulag"[5]
Do you intend to tell me to stop revert-warring after you have reverted the article to your preferred version?? I have seen no single German source that calls the Siberian camp anything other than a "labor camp". The present version of the article's lead section, which simply says "Gulag", is fine with me. Note that I haven't added anything to the article that would say that the Gulag would not have been a concentration camp, so there is no need for any reliable source that says so. You, on the other hand, have failed to produce any reliable source that says that Gauck's father would have been sent to a concentration camp. Cs32enTalk to me23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cs32en, please stop getting personal at the Camp Chapman Attack talk page and continue here if you really must, but I'll warn you again that I do not intend to discuss that article anywhere else except at its talk page.
Firstly, you asked, "You may want to explain why you have set up an account for the only purpose of engaging in the dispute about the security director at Camp Chapman." How can that be if my account was set up nearly a year before the Camp Chapman attack occurred?
Secondly, accusing me of watchlisting that article with a second account makes no sense at all. Why would that be a "reasonable assumption" for you to make about how I follow that article?
Finally, is it reasonable to assume that resorting to personal issues like these indicates that you have no actual counter arguments against my line of reasoning?--Phiont (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phiont, for the counter-arguments, as well as the input from other editors, please see the talk page of the article. "I use this name with accounts when I mostly expect to observe silently (lurk?), but would still like to receive the benefits of registration." Does this phrase sound familiar to you? Cs32enTalk to me16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably already know, you've quoted my reply to an admin made 4 years ago in my first account named 4m33s. I stopped using that account 18 months ago on the same day that this account was created. Please explain how you became aware of that account and why it should have any relevance to our Camp Chapman Attack article dispute.--Phiont (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a more helpful reply, I am considering initiating an incident investigation with admin to determine if there has been an abuse of the CheckUser or SPI systems or if your actions here constitute fishing. I will inform you if/when it has begun.--Phiont (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HelloAnnyong. Thank you for your message! I'll be more careful in the future. I saw this case as a WP:BRD situation, and actually didn't see the undoing of the addition of a single space (the second revert) as a revert that would count in this context. I also did not intend to re-revert, if Joseph.nobles or any other editor would have restored these edits. But again, thank you for reminding me of the rules! Although I must say that I was a bit surprised about the message, I agree that it is better to stick to the letter of the guidelines. Cs32enTalk to me19:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, given that Joseph.nobles could have seen from the discussion at the talk page that his edits will likely be controversial, wouldn't it have been better if he would have proposed these edits on the talk page first? Cs32enTalk to me19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should consider reverting your recent change of 'demonstrations' to 'protests' because there were rallies both in support and in opposition to Israel's actions. If we use the word protests we'll need to say something like "rallies protesting and supporting Israel's actions" ... which is kinda wordy for the lead.
Thank you for your message! I changed "demonstrations" to "protests", because the section in the "reactios" article describes activities other than demonstrations. I actually didn't think about the question of support vs. opposition at the time. My take on that question would be that, "all over the world", opposition has far outweighed the support, and the supporting activities also were a response to the protests against the raid, rather than due to the event itself. I'll change "protests" to "demonstrations", though the term is probably not optimal to describe the content of the other article's section. Cs32enTalk to me22:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cs32en, you are of course correct that the protests against the raid far outweighed the demonstrations in support of Israel. I think its very reasonabbe for reactions section should reflect that by giving WP:DUE proportional weight to the protests. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arutz Sheva
Information based on content from Arutz Sheva, which is an agenda-driven news outlet, should be attributed to the source. We would probably also attribute information sourced to Wafa or similar sources. Alternatively, a more neutral source may be found that supports the content. The latter would probably be the better option. Cs32enTalk to me13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you that Arutz Sheva is not a top-caliber source, I really think wording to the effect of "Israel questions ... alleging that much of the equipment and supplies the ships carried were found to be worthless" is a good solution. The problem is that I want to avoid synthesis by saying that Israel makes these allegations, while citing a source that doesn't make that allegation. Any suggestions for alternative sources? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Arutz Sheva article cannot be used to support the statement that Israel makes these allegations. It could only be used to state that an "IDF source" made the allegations. Also, in this case, the wording with regard to the description of the medicine would need to be changed slightly. Cs32enTalk to me14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take another shot at it. If this doesn't work, we'll need to move this discussion to the article talk page, which I would rather not do, because it's so jam-packed. How would you feel about citing this source as well, and saying the following:
Israel questions the motives of flotilla organizers, saying, "Israel has invited the organizers of the flotilla to use the land crossings, in the same manner as all the reputable international organizations. However, they are less interested in bringing in aid than in promoting their radical agenda, playing into the hands of Hamas provocations. While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid."[1] An IDF source alleged that much of the equipment and supplies the ships carried were found to be worthless, and argued that this further proved an alterior motive on the part of flotilla organizers. (etc.)
Israel questions the motives of flotilla organizers, saying that they would be "less interested in bringing in aid than in promoting their radical agenda, playing into the hands of Hamas provocations. While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid."[1] According to the pro-settler news outlet Arutz Sheva, an IDF source alleged that the poor condition of the supplies would render most of it unusable, and argued that this further proved an ulterior motive on the part of flotilla organizers.[2]
Hi, Cs32en. I noticed you recently undid some edits of mine to the Gaza flotilla raid article. I had removed credits for photos from the image captions, in accordance with WP:CREDITS. The explanation you gave for your edit was, "This identifies the source, not the author or copyright holder. It is thus not a credit, and it is also relevant to the subject. (WP:CREDITS says: 'Unless relevant to the subject, ...') The issue has already been discussed on the talk page."
I am confused about several things. First, these captions do seem to identify the author and copyright holder of the images. At least, the sources identified in the captions match the source information given on the image description pages. If, for example, Ali Abunimah is not the photographer who created File:Idf soldier treated.png, then who is? If Hürriyet is not the copyright holder, then who is? So I do not understand what you mean when you say these captions identify the "source" rather than the author or copyright holder. To me, at least in these cases, these words mean the same thing.
Second, and more importantly, in what way is this source information relevant to the subject? Why is it important for the reader of the article to know that File:Idf soldier treated.png was photographed by Ali Abunimah for the Hürriyet newspaper, for example?
Finally, where has this issue been discussed on the talk page? The only mention I could find is Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 12#Captions to photos, where Samuel B52 writes, "For sure it's relevant, I think. We need to know from where come the sources if we want follow it." This does not strike me as a particularly persuasive argument: his first sentence doesn't give any reason, and I don't understand what he's trying to say in his second sentence. If this issue has been discussed somewhere else, can you please point me to the discussion, so that I don't have to read through all 14 archives of the talk page to find it?
Hi Bkell! Thank you for letting me know about your thinking with regard to this issue! As far as I remember, there was a discussion at the article's talk page on whether the photos should just be described, or whether the sources of the photos should be given. It was also discussed, as far as I remember, whether to indicate of the sources in this way would obviate the need for inline attribution of descriptions of the photos. I don't think that these things have been discussed in every detail, and a new discussion about the photos would be fully legitimate, in my view.
To me, the present situation appears to be a stable compromise, so I would keep the current version unless a different consensus would emerge. The copyright situation of many of the photos is unclear. In some cases, it's also not clear who has published the photos in the first place. Therefore, these sources do not serve the purpose of credits, whether in a legal or in a purely informational sense. They indicate who placed the content in the public sphere, broadly speaking, and who had control over the choice of the published material, and possibly any modifications (cropping etc.) of the photos.
The best way to proceed, in my view, would be to conduct further discussion on the talk page. Other editors may feel more strongly about this issue than I do, so a consensus between us both would not mean that any resulting edit would be uncontested, anyway. -- Regards, Cs32enTalk to me23:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFC
Pleas do not just revert good faith edits, there is a RFC discussion on the talkpage that you have fail to join in. The content is rubbish and as a neutral I can assure you our article is better of without out it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My revert does not imply that I would assume that you would have made your edit in bad faith. In my view, your edit was a bold edit, given that the discussion on the talk page is inconclusive at this point. You also did not refer to the talk page discussion in your edit summary. Cs32enTalk to me20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll pardon me for not understanding, but how is that misleading? I wrote in the talk, "I will now use my one revert for the 24 hours to remove this quotation once again. I hope that my edit will stand, so that we can continue to move forward on making this article better." Then I reverted, and referred to the talk. How would you have preferred for the edit summary to have read? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. This indeed looks like a misunderstanding. To me, and probably to a number of others, referring to the talk without further specification means that an edit is being done as a result of a consensus that had been built on talk. The edit summary then indicates that the edit may not exactly coincide with the editors viewpoint or assessment, and that the editor merely act as a agent of the talk page discussion. In this case, however, you did not refer to the discussion, but to your specific statement. Cs32enTalk to me18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Jelena Janković, commonly used name in English-language reliable sources is Jelena Jankovic
There may be different rules for names of people and names of institutions, especially with regard to abbreviations or acronyms. I have stated my viewpoint, but if we want to choose the option that conforms to the existing practices, we should consult an uninvolved administrator who has the relevant knowledge. Cs32enTalk to me14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked User:Joy who is an admin. He posted this message on my talk page:
"Please have a look at e.g. Talk:Goran Višnjić for the relevant arguments and policies. If you still have specific questions, let me know."
From that talk page, it is quite clear that the diacritics should be used: İHH is the actual name, it's merely stripped of diacritics in typical English-language texts, like it is done with any other such non-ASCII text. Kavas (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you interpret "Names which are originally written in a Latin alphabet, and which have no particularly well-established English name, are normally written in their native form, even if that contains diacritics or letters that do not normally appear in English, as in Strübbel, Łopuchówko and Reyðarfjörður. However, when there is a well-established English form, such as Aragon (for Aragón) or Napoleon (for Napoléon), that is used instead"?
Is IHH a well-established English form or it's a Turkish name merely stripped of diacritics in typical English-language texts like in the case of Goran Višnjić.
According to User:Joy, Goran Višnjić is merely stripped of diacritics, contrary to English texts which use it like this one:
Article text:
Now credited as Goran Visnjic in his English-language work, he adopted the simplified spelling of his name when he came to the United States in the late '90s, believing it would be more accessible to American audiences. [1]
1. ^ Allen, Ted (2001.) Who Is Goran Visnjic and What Does He Want? Esquire Magazine: March, 2001.
1. The article title does not have some other usual English version. For example, the German name of Friedrich II. (Preußen), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), is entitled Frederick II of Prussia:
IHH is not an English version of the name, it is a Turkish name just written without diacritics like Goran Višnjić
2. There are multiple English-language reliable publications which use the version with diacritics
Today's Zamman, Hürriyet Daily News, etc
3. There is no other naming convention (policy, guideline) that would have the page at a different name;
You removed a post a while back because you stated it was not based on reliable information. Daniel Sunjata has two children and I feel everyone should have a right to know. He has two daughters Kiera and Itasia. Their only public connection to their father is this news paper article released after the death of their grandmother. I have copied the article into this message and I have provided you a link to the article itself. I anxiously await your response as to why its so hush hush that he is a married man with two children.
Rose Mary Condon, 90, of Oswego, IL, died Friday, Feb. 23, 2007, at Hillside Healthcare Center in Yorkville, IL. She was born Dec. 20, 1916, in Troy Township, IL, the daughter of the late Thomas H. and Rose Anna, nee Hennessey, Wynne. She was a founding member of St Anne Catholic Church of Oswego, IL, and formerly active in the Council of Catholic Women of the church. She had served as a Democratic election judge in Kendall County, IL, for over 50 years. Rose Mary is survived by her daughter Mary (Kevin) Murray of Oswego, IL, three sons John and William Condon both of Chicago, IL, Robert (Sally, nee Matlock) Condon of Myersville, MD; six grandchildren Tim Condon of Virginia, Nancy (Terry) Bryan of Georgia, Edward Condon of Maryland, Daniel Sunjata Condon of New York, Catherine Leah Condon of Illinois, John Patrick Murray of Illinois; three great- grandchildren Paxton Condon, Itasia Wyatt-Condon, Kiera Condon; two great-great-grandchildren Serenity and Cameron Condon; and a brother Howard Wynne of Joliet, IL. She was preceded in death by her husband Charles Condon, daughter-in-law Catherine Condon, a sister and two brothers. Visitation will take place on Monday, Feb. 26, 2007, from 3 to 8 p.m., at the McKeown-Dunn Funeral Home, Ltd. & Cremation Servicesat 210 S. Madison St. in Oswego, IL. A Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated by Fr. Dan Stempora on Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2007, at 10 a.m., at St. Anne Catholic Church at 551 Boulder Hill Pass in Oswego, IL. Interment Mount Olivet Cemetery in Aurora, IL. Memorials may be directed to St. Anne Catholic Church. For additional information 630/554-3888 or 800/942-DUNN.
Why did you submit my name as a wikepedia "sock pocket"? I have no idea what that is and when I looked it up, that is not me. Also, you contacted wikipedia and said I made numerous errors and questionable changes on wikipedia. Again, this is absolutely false! I will report you to Wikipedia for this B.S.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsue (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did add your name to the sockpuppet investigation because I thought that it would be likely that you would have been using the other accounts I have mentioned there. I have also stated my opinion that a number of your edits are questionable. Cs32enTalk to me21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem has been solved, as the editor is now blocked. My guess is that there are about a few dozen editors watching this page who agree with you on the merit of that edit. Cs32enTalk to me01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I would advise you to ignore Chesdovi's request. There was no basis for the change that he made originally. And what he provided you was a category not protocol, which is suppose to prove his point (how? I have no idea.) -asad (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Hatay should be referred to a dispute while the Golan be termed an occupation. Why can the term dispute not be applied to the Golan too. Or visa-versa. Why are there two examples of disputes, with each being described using a different term? No one would doubt Turkey is occupying Northern Cyprus, yet the whole sitution is called the "Cyprus dispute"? Please revert. Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how old you are, but I'm closing in on 40 very rapidly, so most 20-year-old girls look good to me. I don't know why I was so picky when I was younger! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this claim is weakly supported, better leave it out, I don't know where you are discussing it but lets leave it out for the time being until it sis confirmed, the press are also not reporting it either. the BBC and the Guardian neither are reporting a mob chanting jew jew jew as they sexually attacked her. Off2riorob (talk) 4:15 am, Today (UTC+0)
There was an ongoing discussion, and the removal encompassed not only the content sourced to the New York Post, but also content sourced to the Wall Street Journal. Cs32enTalk to me04:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the jew jew jew chanting sexual mob claim is out now, if and when that is confirmed by another reputable source then we can replace it, I don't see any consensus to add it anywhere, at least two users strongly object to it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to add the material. Thus, it should not be added. It is the addition of the material that constitutes change to the article, so it is the addition that doesn't have consensus. Please revert your revert. Additionally, a completely anonymous discussion of a person's sexual assault 48 hours after it happened is just gross. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can, and should, always delete unsourced BLP-sensitive statements from an article, without the need to discuss this. In this case, the material is sourced (i.e. the reliable source made the judgment that the original source of the material was reliable, per our assumptions about how reliable sources operate), and neither a statement that someone was not raped nor a statement that a group of unnamed people chanted "Jew, jew!" is BLP-sensitive. Both items may be undue, but this should be determined by the consensus that hopefully emerges from the ongoing discussion. Note that the New York Post refers to "a person familiar with the matter", so the newspaper itself apparently knows the identity of the person. Cs32enTalk to me05:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the consensus that emerges from the ongoing discussion. And until a new consensus emerges, the old one remains. The old one does not have this material in it. So, it is being added without consensus. Please revert your revert. (Also, speculation about what did and did not happen during someone's sexual assault is very obviously BLP sensitive. The New York Post is not reliable, and neither are anonymous sources in a BLP.) Mindbunny (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been a consensus not to include the material? I can't see anything to that effect on the article's talk page. Again, the source is unnamed, but obviously not unknown to the newspaper. Cs32enTalk to me05:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be a consensus not to add it. There has to be a consensus to add it. This is the third time I've pointed this out to you in about 15 minutes. Mindbunny (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The consensus that Mindbunny is speaking of may be seen at WP:BRD. The status quo of an article is the standing consensus...once material has been added and then reverted, we need to follow the process of BRD. Consensus is being used in a different but correct context here. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))06:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have worked on and expanded the content that is being discussed. An editor cannot claim to be following WP:BRD in this case. (Note: I'll get some sleep now.) Cs32enTalk to me06:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed knowledge of jargon and policies seemed strangely advanced for such a new user. Particularly doing this after just a couple of weeks after user's registration. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not adept at navigating Wikipedia subject sites.
I like the information presented about the Jasmine Revolution.
I do not understand why any one would want to delete good information.
I depend on the employees at Wikipedia to regulate the quality and truthfulness of all Wikipedia subject entries.
Since the One World Government has become a reality, I am aware that mis-information creeps in every where.
As soon as I win the lottery, I shall make a substantial endowment for the support of Wikipedia. I can not be helpful on Social Security.
I am a dedicated Wikipedia fan.
General Zard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.12.68 (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit with Charlie Sheen
You removed some factual information from a reliable source on that page. I reverted, but am trying to avoid an edit war. Please discussion any edits with me before reverting. I am disputing your bold edit because adding factual unbias information from an unbias reliable source does not fall into UNDUE. Thanks! Valoemtalk16:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed at the talk page before you added the content. Keep in mind that, even if WP:BRD would apply, your first edit would be the "bold" edit. Please read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. You should revert your edit yourself, unless you want to be seen as edit-warring. Cs32enTalk to me17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert or edit on my talk page
You have just violated WP:GOODFAITH by vandalizing my talk page. Your edit on my talk page is technically vandalism. You know that I did not engage in an edit war and acted on good faith. Edit wars require more than one revert or a lack of civility. My statement on your talk page was due to civility. I was stating that I did not want to engage in an edit war therefore I was opened to discussion. How you interpreted this as a attack, I'm not sure, but your attack on my talk page was flagrant I've been on Wikipedia longer than you please respect that. If you want I can talk this to arbitration, but you are clearly in the red. Valoemtalk17:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can but that would defeat the purpose. If you want to avoid arbitration or possible vandalism warning on your page I would recommend reverting your edit on my page as a sign of good faith. I've done nothing wrong and you are aware of that therefore I have an problem with this attitude your showing here:
removal of the message indicates, however, that you have acknowledged the message
Valoem: Vandalism is the insertion of obscenities or nonsense, or the blanking of a page. Cs32en's warning is neither vandalism nor a personal attack. You have a great deal of control over your own talk page, so if there's a post you don't like, you can remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the fact that he referred to Chuck Lorre by his Jewish name, he already explained that it wasn't meant to be perceived the way some people have perceived it. Again, WP:NPOV. If that's not what you are referring to, then what can be perceived as offensive? Nymfhideliho!12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really answering my question. I am aware of how the rant has been depicted in general media. Drama sells! What I am saying is, from a neutral point of view, we should not characterize it as anything other than a rant. It is up to the reader to decide if it is offensive or not. And to show all point of views, we should really also include what led Sheen to say these things. Let me quote, "Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." Nymfhideliho!13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV doesn't require that articles be neutral. Rather, it requires the editors be neutral. IOW, follow the sources. But as a compromise, how about changing it so we just quote Sheen and let the reader decide if it's offensive? For example:
"The network subsequently announced that the season then underway and due to film its last four episodes was canceled after Sheen called the creator and lead writer of Two and a Half Men' a "stupid little man" on the February 24 edition of a radio broadcast hosted by Alex Jones."
Actually, it does say the articles should be neutral and impartial. If you keep reading WP:NPOV, it also says this further down: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." I am fine with using that "stupid little man" quote by Sheen, but I will also add what led him to say that. Nymfhideliho!13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand WP:NPOV in its entirety. The section in which you quote is about situations where there's a dispute over something. In this particular case, I don't think that anyone is seriously disputing that calling someone "stupid" is offensive. But if there are sources which state otherwise, then it's a different situation. I don't edit that article or follow Sheen so my knowledge about this incident is limited to just the article that was cited. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dispute. It is between Charlie Sheen and Chuck Lorre. By calling the comments offensive, indirectly taking Lorre's side, you are not impartial anymore. The policy is quite clear on that. Nymfhideliho!14:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to change the wording, based on reliable sources, please go ahead. Chances are that I won't object, and there is no need to build consensus about it, and any consensus that would be built on my talk page would not be particularly meaningful anyway. Cs32enTalk to me22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cs32en, a lot of seawater would be boiling, and salt concentration would increase. This would require regular flushing/dilution of the reactor vessel, needing even more water. Awful situation for those poor operators. !@#$%^&*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.65.71 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Fujita-Yukihisa-Seeking-911-Truth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's no problem, I've simply wanted to take the chance of making that remark before the opportunity passed unused :p --Gliese876 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would place about 4 images in one row, rather than 6 images in two rows. My computer's screen is rather wide, so 6 images would fit on it, but that's not the case for smaller sizes. Cs32enTalk to me22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5 images in a row are still properly displayed on my 10 inch-netbook. The sixth picture is moved to the next line. Four might be the best choice though. --Gliese876 (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cs32en: I noticed that you declined the Barnstar that I recently presented to you. I appreciate your humility and I also appreciate your contributions to this encyclopedia. In particular, I felt that your comments on the Holocaust reflected a profound understanding of military history that could not be acquired by merely reading a few popular articles and quickly citing them on Wikipedia. Your "minor" contribution transcended the remarks of many "reputable" sources. When I read Wikipedia, I am not merely looking for popular citations or pages of text, I am also looking for the insight and wisdom that often requires years to obtain. --Isleofbelle (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment! Well, one problem with studies on the Holocaust seems to be that so many disciplines are involved. As a result, researchers are commenting on aspects of the Holocaust which fall outside of their profession. So, while most of the sources get the main questions on the Holocaust right, on issues of less importance, you will find quite a number of interpretations in a lot of sources that are generally being regarded as reliable that are somewhat vague, ill defined or wrong from the standpoint of the specific acedemic discipline. I don't like barnstars too much, so please don't take it personally if I remove them :-) Cs32enTalk to me11:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
If you're going to revert text without saying there's anything wrong with it, citing the need for discussion,[12] I'd appreciate if you actually discussed what problem you have with it. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to take part in the discussion about the content of your edit. If your edit is being reverted, then you need to establish consensus for the inclusion of the content before you can add the content. You cannot re-add the content while the discussion is ongoing. Note that the discussion is ongoing until consensus has been achieved. The discussion does not end merely because of a lack of new comments on the issue. Cs32enTalk to me00:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, of course, whether or not to include content about Hinduism in the article, as you have suggested, and this issue is being debated on the article's talk page. Cs32enTalk to me00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fjordman
Hi. Since you are so active on this page, and support my version of the article, why don't you try to help me revert back to it? If it is only I who revert back to it, it gives the impression that it is only I who support that version. I know you are not very supportive of the article itself, but it is nevertheless only my version that has at least some legitimacy. It is my version we should be basing the considerations (conserning possible delete/merge) on, not the other wreck of an article. Kind regards, – Bellatores(t.)12:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Active involvement in a deletion discussion and in the article itself is usually not a good idea. I do not think that it matters which version of the article is being displayed during the deletion discussion, as the closing editor/administrator would either decide "merge" or "keep", based on your (or a similar version) of the article. Whatever the result, I am planning to get involved in the discussions on the article's text (either at the article's page or at the page to which the article will have been merged into) after the closure of the AfD. Cs32enTalk to me14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I guess I just get a bit frustrated about the behaviour of certain editors some times. I shall nevertheless continue to monitor the discussion around the article, and the article itself, and we'll see how everything concludes. – Bellatores(t.)16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because organizations that are publicly seen as contemporary versions of the Knights Templar have said that Breivik was not a member of them. We may report on these statement, as there are a number of reliable sources available on this, but we cannot claim that he is a member of any of the contemporary Knights Templar organization, nor can we assume that the organization described by Breivik in his texts actually exists. He is not a member of the historic Knights Templar, as this organization has been dissolved several hundred years ago. Cs32enTalk to me21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is how he describes himself, and investigations are still ongoing, so shouldn't be dismissed. Secondly, when you revert without an edit summary or discussing, you usually don't gove a warning notice. Pass a Methodtalk21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't dismiss how Breivik characterizes himself. We just don't report it as somehow describing reality. I have given the warning notice in view of your overall editing at this article. Cs32enTalk to me21:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more constructive if you actually specified what is wrong with my edits on that article instead of giving an ambiguous warning, then leaving me to guess and ponder what i did wrong. Pass a Methodtalk22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you have made more than 2.000 edits, I have assumed that you would be familiar with the rules regarding the editing process. The warning template also links to the relevant guidelines and policies. Cs32enTalk to me22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
let's chat
This is the only account I've used in wikipedia. I'd like to add original content based on my research on Breivik's manifest
so how do we chat?
Sorry, you cannot use your own research on Breivik's manifest. We have to edit based on independent, secondary sources that conform to our policies on reliable sources. We may use Breivik's text (i.e. those parts that he himself has written, according to reliable sources) to fill in minor gaps in the presentation. Cs32enTalk to me22:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm proposing that wikipedia create a new entry regarding neoconservative extremism with Breivik as an example. Fiolou (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I read the manifest. I know that describing him as a right wing extremist is inaccurate. Right wing ideology does not define accurately his irrationally hate of Muslims. Muslims can be right wing and not share Breivik's ideology. The term neoconservative extremist more accurately describes his ideology which is the clear origin his irrational fear of Muslims and the cultural threat Muslim immigration represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiolou (talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Right-wing" does not necessarily mean "Nazi" or "anti-semite". If Breivik is a neoconservative extremist, he also is right-wing. So I don't see the contradiction that you are seeing. Cs32enTalk to me23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the page about the person/character with a redirect following the discussion about deletion. I hope this is OK.
I take your point about the page on the book requiring improvement. Let's hope it gets done sooner rather than later. I don't have easy access to some of the relevant source material. -Alan (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I have any better access than you have. And if I would be really interested in that particular article, I would have actually looked for sources before deciding whether to nominate it for deletion. As it is, my man interest is in reducing the number of bogus, insufficiently sources (or sometimes "pseudo-sourced") articles on controversial topics. I am an eventualist, as long as things are uncontroversial, but a deletionist if they are. I also think that badly written articles are discouraging knowledgeable editor from editing, so a clean start is often the best way to proceed. Cs32enTalk to me15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your point of a view on deletions. The debate about deleting the Apology has encouraged me to do some further work on the article, and I hope that it is now in a state that won't put off a knowledgeable person who may stumble on it. -Alan (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable work on the article! While I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, I would like to suggest two things: (a) there may be a better source (i.e. a PDF, for example) on Muir views, and the references should make clear that the links is to a text written by Muir; (b) there is no source that clearly indicates that Muir views are notable. As others have expressed views that differ from Muir's, they have probable made references to Muir somewhere, and it would be useful to have these references included in the article, to support the notability of Muir's views. The presentation of Muir's views is long in relation to other views, and I feel that this needs to be justified. Cs32enTalk to me21:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragement! I take your point about the article leaning very heavily on Muir. I understand that his publications did generate debate, and I am sure more could be said about other views of interest. To be honest with you, I am out of my depth with this article. I only got involved because of an interest in the twelfth century renaissance. -Alan (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave a template at the article and explain to readers where and how the article may be improved. The article does not need to be perfect. Cs32enTalk to me21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I see you raised similar thoughts to mine on this article some time back May 2010).
I agree with what you wrote and see that others have made the same observation over time, but to no avail.
I don't know if this is OK to do (contacting like-minded individuals to reach a consensus on a contentious article) or if you are still interested? But if it is OK, I wonder if I could ask for your involvement on the discussion page under Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction [[14]]--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 4, 2011.
Hello there. Since you started the discussion about machine translations on Wikipedia talk:Translation I thought you might also be interested in the discussion about machine translation at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. It's essentially a debate about whether the related guideline at WP:NONENG needs amendment, with specific reference to the machine translation of direct quotations, rather than entire articles. Regards. Rubywine . talk17:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
I only undid one of your edits. In the edit summary, you yourself have stated that your edit was bold. So if your edit is being reverted, the appropriate course of action is to discuss the content on the talk page, not to re-revert. Cs32enTalk to me01:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you made the accusation of an edit war on my talk page, I just reviewed your edits and my own and I think you are mistaken. The user you were engaging was not me, it was in this 22:03, 9 August 2011 Cs32en (talk | contribs) (73,281 bytes) (Changes not supported by consensus (and clearly against an evolving consensus on the talk page). To Protostan: the next attempt at effectuating similar changes to the article will likely get you blocked.) (undo) I am not Protostan and had nothing to do with your edit war with that user. --Hemshaw (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nazis were pro-Zionist? I dont thnik so, many jewish emigrants who feld from germany for to example netherlands, were killed after the occupation of this country. Nazis were pro-Islam, because they had an joint possession the Antisemitsm, the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini was an aktive offender of the Holocaust, the Holocaust denial is in the arab world something like a "popular Spor", for example the Uncle of Saddam Hussein had sypathies for Nazism, and many Rightwing Extremists like the german NPD were gasts in Mahmoud AhmadinejadsInternational Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust.
I think Breivik is a militant New Right sectarian but not Neo Nazi or Antisemitic. Look many Rightwing Populists exploit Criticism of Islam for they own reasons, for example Ayaan Hirsi Ali think that islamic understanding of genderer roles favours a brutal Gender Apartheid, the Rightwing Populists only wanted fight agasinst forgein influcences and they dont intersted in victims of Islam like the Apostates.--Portland334487 (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have said that some Nazis supported Zionism. I also know about the support of some Arab Muslims, including the Mufti of Jerusalem, for the Nazis. I think there are no historic ideologies or currents without contradictions. I don't know whether, for example, the support of the Mufti of Jerusalem came only after the support of some Nazis for Zionism ended.
I agree with you that Breivik is not a Neo-nazi or an Anti-Semitic. He may, however, be a fascist, as fascism does not necessarily imply anti-semitism. Cs32enTalk to me18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Sorry I didnt see that, but I think in arab world were not many opposition or resistance against the anti-jewish policy of their Elites, the governement of Iraq were pro-German, many Jews died by Pogroms. --95.114.5.145 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability - Machine Translation
Hello there, your comment at Verifiability#Machine Translation was very welcome, thanks. I realise that the proposal did not need any amendment. I just thought it was the best way to stem the persistent opposition from one editor, which is increasingly personal in tone, and which I think threatens to derail the whole proposal. I probably need to find the time and energy to go around all the Wikiprojects and get more people involved in the discussion. It seems to be running out of stream, and even though nearly everyone has supported the amendment, it would be hard to argue the case for consensus. If you have any advice it would be welcome. Rubywine . talk21:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done that. I tried to make things clearer for people joining the discussion. I restored the original version #2, and moved the amendment to version #3. I also took the liberty of copying your last comment below #3. I hope that's ok. Rubywine . talk23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have tried to initiate constructive discussion with you before using the template. You instead chose to again remove a large amount of sourced content from the article, without trying to get consensus or at least give a more specific explanation on the talk page. Such behavior, if persistent, is generally considered to constitute edit warring. Cs32enTalk to me01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied in the talk page with constructive argument - WP:BRD. Edit warring is about persistence, two reverts are not persistence. If you play deaf that is your problem, not mine.--Cerejota (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who reverted without discussion. As I said, stop playing deaf. You are not in the right in your assertion. BRD also doesn't prohibit further BOLD. Be usueful and specifiy why my changes are unacceptable in the talk page, so far you all you say is "THERE IS NO COSNENSUS!!!1111!!!!" but consenus can change and while I have explained, and edited, the changes I want to see, you have so far refused to discuss why the previous version is better or more encyclopedic.--Cerejota (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is something still to be said at this AE request, it will probably be closed with no action. It seems that Cerejota may have lost his temper briefly, but he has now set up an RfC to try to reach consensus. The arb sanctions are more appropriate for cases of long-term tendentious editing on 9/11, and I don't see that here. If this case had been taken to WP:AN3 as an edit warring complaint it is unlikely that any admin action would have been taken. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that Cerejota has now adopted a somewhat different approach. While he still maintains that his actions during his "loss of temper" would have been fully appropriate, he does not act on this premise as of now. To avoid further similar problems in this future, it would be helpful if the AE discussion could clarify that WP:BRD does advise bold editors to discuss the proposed changes immediately, after their bold edit has been reverted, instead of first re-reverting and then discussing the proposal. Cs32enTalk to me14:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you remove your recent comment from the article talk page. It is not especially helpful for improving the article content. What you have written differs from the one-line summary I provided in the AE closure. Continued indulgence in bad temper (by either party) is unlikely to benefit the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it is important that other editors are aware that Cerejota's approach has not been considered appropriate by the community. Otherwise, other editors may take that approach as an example or may think that his bullying approach and condescending language may somehow be legitimate due to the circumstances. However, in the interest of a constructive resolution of the issue, I will remove the comment. Cs32enTalk to me18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link because YouTube is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's standards. See the explanation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:YouTube. Furthermore, the sentence appeared to put undue weight on an information that does not seem to be particularly relevant from an encyclopedic viewpoint. We may, however, expand on this point in the article if this becomes more relevant, as indicated, for example, if there would be secondary sources (news outlets etc.) reporting on this. Cs32enTalk to me10:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hello Cs32en. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
I've starting revising the Camp Chapman attack article that you've done such good work on. It's been a while since the article got a lot of attention and I think it could use some updating. I'd be happy to have your input or further edits. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Cs32en. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Cs32en. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Cs32en. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You removed a statement where I wrote that radio intercepts indicated "that the murder of civilians has become a standard element of Russian military activity" with the logic that the newspaper is not saying that, but an unnamed source is. The sentence is stating what the radio intercept said and sourcing it appropriately to assessments made by German intelligence, not ascribing it as an assessment made by Der Spiegel. Please read carefully before removing verifiable information in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisanthusjohn (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to your wording, the intercepted messages indicate that the murder [...] has become a standard element. However, the source clearly states that, according to "sources familiar with the audio", some content of the intercepts indicate that the murder [...] has become a standard element: "That, say sources familiar with the audio, indicates that the murder of civilians has become a standard element of Russian military activity [...]". These sources are unnamed. I'm going to revert your edit after an appropriate time span, unless you reply here on the talk page or discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Cs32enTalk to me21:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you reword your objection, I don't understand. The phrasing is that the intercepts indicate X. The article says that a source familiar with the audio indicates that the intercepts say X. To me these are essentially equivalent. What is your objection? Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, is your objection is that this information comes from an unnamed source? I have changed the sentence to "that the killings were not considered exceptional by the soldiers discussing them, and, according to an unnamed source familiar with the audio, that the atrocities had become a standard element of Russian military activity." Let me know what you think. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is that it is not the reliable source that says that the intercepts indicate X, but that the reliable source reports that other people, who are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia editing standards, say that the intercepts indicate X. With regard to your edit, it is not necessary to point out that the sources are unnamed. Thus, I suggest that you change "an unnamed source familiar with the audio" to "sources familiar with the intercepts". Thank you for discussing the issue and for taking my objection into consideration! Cs32enTalk to me03:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. I assumed the source would be connected to German intelligence or the German parliament and were already vetted by Der Spiegel. You are correct, your phrasing is better and it is important to let the reader know. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I assume the sources are members of parliament that cannot talk openly about the session. Probably Der Spiegel thinks that the sources are somewhat trustworthy, because there is no point in referring to unnamed sources if you assume what they say is untrue and you want to keep a reputation for accuracy. But Der Spiegel has not corroborated or otherwise verified what they say, so it is not presenting what they say as fact. Cs32enTalk to me15:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
SPECIFICOtalk17:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Yes, users are expected to collaborate with others. That's why I created a section on the talk page, and presented multiple reliable sources. You do not meaningfully engage in the discussion (i.e. not presenting sources) and insist on editing the article according to your personal preferences. Cs32enTalk to me17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
