User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2011/April

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Supreme Deliciousness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Stalking

Based on your allusion to me stalking you I figured I would be open and explain it to you. If I see your name pop up on my watchlist I often click on it. This is based on your previous editing style of opening several discussion on the same thing which has led to different results in different articles. I attempted a centralized discussion on one of these issues but you did not participate in a manner that seemed to want to get consensus but instead dug in your heals. So if you continue to go around making what might initially appear to be minor changes based on politics that actually have substantial meaning then you should expect that other editors will try to counter what they see as problematic. Whether you intend to be covert or not, that is exactly how it looks and many of your edits do essentially "slip in" unnoticed. For example, I just clicked on your contributions and saw that you brought the politics into an article about a bird. I do understand that you think you are making articles more factually correct but as I have previously explained to you, you are introducing only one aspect which leads to Wikipedia being inconsistent in its coverage of the topic area while it also goes against the precedents set in other tertiary sources. So feel free to make your changes but don;t be surprised if you see the same editors continuing to disagree with you. This article is a perfect example. There was no reason to change the scope of the line make a point. Simply write a new line that spells out the information in its entirety (demographics in the occupied territories, not the legality of the occupation).Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to here: "I attempted a centralized discussion on one of these issues but you did not participate in a manner that seemed to want to get consensus but instead dug in your heals." ? My changes are not based on politics, they are based on Wikipedia policy npov. The line was changed by me, not to make a point, but to show other places outside of Israel where Israelis live. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what I am referring to. The maps. You actually made it right on one article but not the others. And then you kept on doing the same thing. For example, you removed articles from the Israeli Tunnel cat. Instead of being open about it, you are only engaging in a single discussion on a single article about it since another editor actually reverted. If you had a problem with the articles in the cat and decided to make a wide change you should have started a centralized discussion. I would apologize for not assuming good faith but no reasonable person could see what you are doing any other way. Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What consensus about maps are you referring to? If you are talking about the GH, there has not been any new consensus in the discussions to present it as part of Israel or in the same position of the country it is internationally recognized as part of. The only reason why I added the new image to the GH infobox is because Chesdovi made a valid point that it is a region stretching further into Syria and the CIA map is focused on modern boundaries. I still do not know if the new image has consensus and don't believe its better then the unedited CIA map, but the edited CIA map it replaced certainly had no consensus as it is a violation of npov. This new image is of course something that does not effect location maps for obvious reasons as places are shown with location maps everywhere with modern boundaries. I opened a discussion at the talkpage, and I'm not obligated to open new centralized discussions every time a user wants to make a pov edit. And why would you care about centralized discussions? You never had any consensus to remove the unedited CIA map yet you kept removing it from the article. I also suggest that you stop wikistalking me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about consensus about maps. And I am not wikistalking you. But when you make contraversial edits on a GA (that you did not assist in) that ignores a previous discussion without waiting for the newest one to come to consensus you are again POV pushing and will continue to raise eyebrows. If you were editing in a constructive manner no one would feel that they have to clean up after you. I am stunned you would have the gaul to make that change at Falafel. Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But I am happy admitting when I make a mistake. The problematic edit was the IP and you were simply reverting it. However, please see the talk page where I provide reasoning for removing the Arabic translation from the very begining. I'm actually glad it came up even though I wish you guys were not edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is to remind you that I asked for a proposal for the future text of this. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Want to hear something funny? Talk:Rujm el-Hiri wasn't even my doing. I don't have an email about it (yeah, of course those who opposed to your POV BS in email) and nothing came up on my talk page. So either they were watching you or they were watching me (hey, get me a length on the Duwamish Rail bridge, guys!) or maybe people just watch out for POV in topic areas they care about. I didn't even have a POV on the subject (my people even dislike the Jews) until seeing POV pushing on Wikipedia. Enjoy. Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by: "those who opposed to your POV BS in email" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. I know that people think there is some weird underground email cabal but what I get are random "Dude, WTF?" and "Hey, that is BS!" emails. It is actually pretty nice and a good way to vent. I have said some pretty terrible things ("So and so is a jerkoff" or "F him") that I usually can't get away with here. You know what it is. I am sure you do it yourself. Hell, you might even have a coordinated one where you guys bombard articles together. Most of the pro-Israeli crowd stopped trusting me long time ago so if they have one I am not in the loop. But I would like to be since I think they are sexy.Cptnono (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh part 2: those who oppose your "point of view 'chit chat' in email." Not your "point of view is bullshit". Sorry for the confusion on that one.Cptnono (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Favour request

Hey mate! Sorry to bother you, but I'm trying to get Uruguay changed on this map to reflect recent recognition... I and another user keep reverting each other despite the fact that we both want the same thing (Uruguay changed), because we have no idea how to edit maps. If you have the time, would you please do this for me? It'd be greatly appreciated! Nightw 05:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is that map on Wikipedia? Use this instead: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to. I've proposed it before (and others have recently tried). Unfortunately there's no consensus for them to be switched... Would you make the edit to this one? Nightw 08:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cars on fire in Daraa during the 2011 Syrian protests.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cars on fire in Daraa during the 2011 Syrian protests.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, that wasn't even stalking you. But if you are going to upload images with invalid FURs you are going to get mentions on your talk page.Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ALA mark

I saw that you edited Arab Liberation Army. Would you mind coming and giving your mind on commons : here. This discussion has been re-opened. Many thanks. Noisetier (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Man Down

About Man Down, the 50 cent song is not a single so there is no need to specify whether the article for a single named Man Down is of Rihanna or 50 Cent. 50 Cent did nto release it as a single. for example S&M is a song by both Rihanna and Thin Lizzy (Check here: S&M) but the article for the single is S&M (song) only not S&M (Rihanna song). If you try to change the article to Man Down (Rihanna song), it will be reported to wiki as vandalism and your account can be blocked. So please let Man Down (song) stay in its place Syedwaheedhussain (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus - what is consensus

Your postings are highly partisan - and I have only read what you have said via a vis Merom Golan & Neve Ativ. For me to be criticised as "partisan" is of gross double standard.

Now, what is "consensus" to you? That enough people agree on a point? What is the selection process for said editors to whom you attribute this "consensus"? Need I cite a litany of issues to which "consensus" was achieved in history, that later proved completely unreliable and just plain wrong?

Your citations are weak. Do said "consensus" editors really, honestly believe that - (a) BBC's page on the Geneva Conventions & the "Settlements"/"Occupation" are impartial, objective and legally sound? (b) Tom Segev is equally impartial & objective?

I believe you should have cited the sources directly: have you read the Geneva Conventions thoroughly?

You are in a very powerful position: use it wisely. Or do you think Israel's being forced to cede the Golan to Assad is a minor issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnflalor (talk • contribs) 10:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)