Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You have twice reverted my corrections to that page, please do not when I am correcting a pageUnicorn76 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page there. I appreciate you keeping a (comparatively) cool head there, by the way. I understand that you have concerns with the article -- it's total crap right now, and has been kept that way since it's inception by the type of arguing and infighting that's occuring there now. Please help me find reliable sources to improve the article -- you are generally very good about doing this. If you see something that you think is unbalanced, please try to find appropriate sources for it. I'd ultimately like to have all criminal allegations in the article sourced exclusively to scholarly, judicial, government, or respected NGO sources (HRW, Amnesty, UN, etc). Please help me with this. And could you explain to me what problems you have with my sourcing standards? I'd like to discuss it with you here, where it's nice and quiet :) -- Jrtayloriv (talk)

I hope this does not sound like a lecture, given that most people think I am the last person who has a right to lecture anyone on this kind of thing BUT: accusing someone of being a sockpuppet actually IS as you perhaps know a very very very serious accusation here. If you realy think Noloop is a sock, you should request a checkuser, it is not hard to do. Otherwise it is the kind of accusation you shouldn't make casually. (you know of course I otherwise appreciate the comment you left) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have endured a tdf sockpuppet accusation and investigation, which i was cleared. tfd appears to have many useful contributions to wp. i hope in the future more time will be spent on sources and content, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When editors are banned and new accounts editing the same articles are blocked as sockpuppets of banned editors, then it is rational to question new editors who edit in the same style. The correct procedure is to report one's suspicions to SPI. SPI has two ways of addressing these suspicions - checkuser and behavior. Some of the suspected sockpuppets I have reported were blocked on the basis of checkuser, but that is not always possible. You were mentioned as a fellow victim by User:Jessica'sGems who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking. I requested an SPI on your account because you have a similar editing style to User:RJII. You were not in fact "cleared". Instead, the checkuser was unable to connect your ip address with two recently blocked suspected sockpuppets of RJII. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that editors who are banned can come back under new accounts and repeat their disruptive editing, wasting hours of time of serious editors. You can read RJII's reasoning here: "What we did has nothing to do with being Jewish. We just happen to be Jews, so it was a convenient username for our effort. We're Jews (our benefactors, and editors (with the exception of one assistant editor)) who injected our intelligence into the Wikipedia system into the specific areas we were concerned with, building a latticework that will further our own interests in the real world."[1] If a new account resembles RJII it is appropriate that we determine whether or not they are the same editor. TFD (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

by your own logic, you are trying to hold back the sea. perhaps your time would be better spent improving the wp articles you follow, instead of the editors? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do work to improve articles, and I also work to protect articles from edits that make them unencyclopedic. TFD (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, what i meant to say is, if someone can make a new account(bizarre in my case since i have been in wp far longer than you and rj11 combined)then your efforts may be diluted, whereas a valid relevant source you add cannot be undone. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an account is blocked, particularly one belonging to an editor with a history of creating sockpuppets, and a new account (or one that has been dormant) follows the same pattern, then it raises suspicion and the correct way to treat that suspicion is to compare their editing patterns and request a checkuser. BTW the RJII account was set up before Darkstar1st. SPI was set up for a purpose, what else do you think it is for? TFD (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is very hard to imagine the articles i have edited and created follow a pattern. i continue to hope you will realign your focus toward content. you and i a very far apart on ideology, but isn't that the fun of wp. we can have a supervised debate, decided only by facts. when you are met with defeat, as only happens to the best editors, acknowledge a good battle, and move on. have you lost a battle in wp yet? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that all articles represent neutrality and you should not assume that people who oppose the direction you want to take the libertarian or any other article disagree with you over ideology. However, articles must be driven by sources, not editors' personal belief systems. And this is no place for ideological debate, discussions should be about how to present topics. TFD (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps i have misunderstood you ideology. your edits all appear to be grouped around a specific ideology, perhaps some examples to the contrary would convince me otherwise. i doubt you would supply such, even if it did exist. so in closing, much of your time has been spent on other editors, i suggest you weigh those results against the sources and content you have submitted to wp, then decide how your time is best spent. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have yet to create an article in wp, i look forward to your progress, as you have substantial knowledge and would improve wp by sharing. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have created several articles and substantially changed many others. But of course most articles about important topics have already been created. TFD (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, the last time i mentioned it you had not. which articles did you create? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains, if TFD has grounds to suspect someone is a sockpuppet, he ought to have it investigated via checkuser or other means - the accusation of sockpuppet is serious, and if someone really is a sockpuppet we need to know, and if someone is not a sockpuppet (or cannot be proven a probable sockpuppet) then that editor has a right for others to know. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well said. after a certain amount of incorrect attempts to prove puppetry, i would hope an editor would return to content. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) In fact Darkstar1st most of my reports to SPI have resulted in editors being blocked because I assemble evidence to support suspicion. The fact is though that SPI is there to investigate cases where there is a good possibility that an editor is a sockpuppet. Sometimes an editor who appears similar to a blocked editor may be unconnected and sometimes a sock cannot be detected by checkuser. However if someone is wrongly suspected of being a sock it is fairly simple for them to disprove it. If you disagree that SPI should exist then you are welcome to recommend ending it. TFD (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then why don't you believe i am not a sockpuppet, what evidence do you require? btw, which articles have you authored? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are well aware, a checkuser was performed to compare your account with a recently blocked sockpuppet and found no connection.[2] TFD (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar, I left a message for TFD; this section of the talk page is for he and I to discuss a specific topic. You are abusing this talk page by hijacking it for your own use. If you want to raise an issue with TFD create a new section on his talk page but please but out of my conversation with him. You have nothing to do with what I want to alkt to him about. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sl, you may not have this section for your own personal convo. I am on topic by suggesting the time spent on noloop, is undue. tfd is a very smart person which much to offer wp, sockpuppet police is such a lowly duty for such a sharp mind. if there truely be any SP left, perhaps others will out them. tfd, we are awaiting the names of the articles you have created. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you made your point quite clearly and eloquently. It is everything else you have writtn that is off-topic and disruptive. You stated your view, and clearly: fine. Everything else frankly reads as if you are just trying to pick a fight with TFD or have a chip on your shoulder. If I am wrong, and I well may be, I would usggest that what you just wrote, so clear anc concise, is all you need to say on the topic to communicate your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SL, i have already been fought by tfd, and do not seek another. although i emerged the victor, the engagement left a scar or 2. tfd made the claim that i have assumed his ideology. I said his and my ideology are very far apart, but isn't that the fun of wikipedia, engaging those with a dif pov? . i now have evidence in his own words describing "libertarians" as "you" people. i am in fact a libertarian, which begs the obvious question, why are so many non-libertarians set on applying other terms to the article. the other obvious unanswered question is which pages has tfd created? should you wish a "fight" with me (i call it a "debate"), please star my talk page, the never-ending source of false accusations like the one we are currently discussing. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are just soapboxing. Do it somewhere else. I am trying to have an adult discussion with TFD. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved experienced editor I happened to notice this discussion and wondered why Darkstar1st is badgering TFD to name the articles he has authored- there are many roles and tasks for editors at wikipedia, I myself have never authored an article but could spend a thousand lifetimes cleaning up the existing ones. Creating articles does not qualify one editor's contributions over another, and I think most editors do not wish to spend a lot of time considering if someone is a sock or not- so if an editor assumed the task of chasing them down it would be fine by me, and he'd probably be better at it than those who don't often do it. I can't help but notice you almost appear to be giving TFD advice so strong it borders on a threat. If Darkstar1st wishes to discuss this he can at my talk page or a new section here.Batvette (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i threatened tfd, with what? he mentioned he created several articles, i ask which. tfd has accused me of pov pushing, so i thought if he had spent equal time on a broad range of topics, maybe he was right, and i would withdraw. please excuse the incontinence. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much silliness here. See [3] for TFD's three articles created. Really no need for all this stuff. Collect (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the link. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "poltical debate in the U.S. usually refers to libertarian principles"

Seems to me that this sentence somewhat undermines your earlier point about "forms" and "versions"...? BigK HeX (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, you seem to be interested in libertarianism so I thought your opinion on the Talk page of the left libertarian author Sarammago would be useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Saramago#Statements_regarding_Jews.2C_the_Holocaust_and_Palestinians Have a look if you have time. ValenShephard (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strong possibility that I'll be starting an WP:RFC/USER for Darkstar1st pretty soon. Just wanted to give you a heads up, in case you'd be interested in certifying it. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you are interested, and you wanted to start gathering a few preliminary diffs about any evidence of tendentious POV editing and/or disruptive talk page abuse on Libertarian-related pages, it'd be extremely helpful. Thanks, man! BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BigK HeX -- Please take a look at WP:CANVASS. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jrtayloriv, is not a big deal. these two have both tired to have me banned before, and likely will again. i welcome their critique, and admire both of these guys tenacity. If the rest of the people cared as much about this planet as these two, we would all be better off, socialist, anarchist, communist or whatever wins the day. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, canvassing is a big deal, as is your history of disruptive and tenditious editing. You should take their advice to heart and learn to collaborate with other editors, and take some time to read Wikipedia's core policies. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across the issue of canvassing in RfC/Us before. I believe the reasoning is that since it requires that two or more editors must have a problem with another editor that this requires communication between them. This communication should of course be open. The purpose of an RfC/U is of course to resolve problems and is not a punative measure. I do not know how effective this approach would be, but it might invite the comments of outside editors. It might be helpful though as a place to explain to Darkstar1st the procedures that we must all follow in writing articles. TFD (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no problem with him notifying you of the upcoming RfC/U -- the problem was that he specifically asked you to come there with a certain point of view (namely that Darkstar1st is disruptive and tenditious), and to gather a particular type of evidence supporting it. What he should have said is something along the lines of: Hey, I'm about to file an RfC/U on DarkStar1st and since you're involved in the conflict, I'd like to notify you so you can weigh in., and then left it at that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC/U has to be about the same issue. If TFD does not have experience with problems in that area, then TFD's contributions to an RFC/U based on my differing issues with Darkstar1st in that area will not be valid; in that case, TFD should disregard my notification here, since it would be fruitless if we have problems with Darkstar1st on completely different matters. My intention is most certainly not to have TFD go through the effort and collect a bunch of diffs, only to turn out that we're on two wholly separate matters. There is a (pretty constraining) time limit on RFCs, so, I am giving TFD time to perform some legwork if he has any (relevant!) legwork to perform. If he does not, then that's fine too and he won't have to waste any of his time. I do not believe WP:CANVASSING applies at all for the matter of certifying RFC/USERs, since the aim is not to influence discussion, but only to determine if a discussion can begin. Now (selectively) soliciting people to give "outside" opinions within the RFC/USER would very likely qualify as canvassing, but that's a different matter. BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It struck me as canvassing at first, and perhaps could have been worded better, but in light of what you just said, I don't think you did anything really wrong. Sorry to interfere -- and best of luck with the RfC/U. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not a prob at all. It's always good to get input. Your point on CANVASSING is certainly very reasonable. I could well be wrong on my opinion of it. Thanks, all the same! Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jrtay, do you have any proof i am disruptive? i have proof that both of these editors have brought false charges against me, and both have been dismissed. collaboration is what i seek. several of my talk page sections are efforts to determine common ground, please review should you find you new found interest in my edits not abate. you have been an editor for over a year now, i have been an editor much much longer, and have been told to read every wp:thereis. perhaps you could review their examples yourself, and comment specifically, should you find any transgression, i promise you in advance an apology to those offended, and a course correction on my part. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for implying your contribution toward the discussion on Talk:War crimes and the United States may have been POV influenced, clearly your balanced criticism displayed it was not. Just wanted to let you know I noticed that. Batvette (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. TFD (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the shitload of meatpuppets that showed up from Daily Kos, the page above has several reliable sources about the reaction to the announcement of the donation. I think that is what we should cover. Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in participating in improvements to Progress Party (Norway), based on the latest GA review that I have commenced here: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how we both edit/watch aspartame and fascism. Not sure why, but I thought I would mention that. You are doing fine work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Darkstar's objections, I've moved the comments that directly comment on the question back to the top. This means that I have moved your comments away from the 'vote' section, and you no longer have a vote in that section. You may wish to add another 'vote' comment to the RfC. Regards, LK (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an RFC/U for User:BlueRobe, regarding a discussion that you were involved in. It is filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BlueRobe, if you are interested. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading through the Liberalism article and noticed that it was cited as the dominant political strain. I am just beginning in the area, but have read many places that political realism is in fact the dominant strain w/regards to international politics. Before I go to the talk page and make a fool of myself, do you have any words of wisdom or can you point out if I am mistaken? Soxwon (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about this, rather than play rv war. I'll set out why I think the changes I'm making are necessary.

1. The entire section is exclusively dependent on Hunt. It is doubtful scholarship to rely so heavily on a single source in an encyclopaedia article; notwithstanding that, the dependence should be acknowledged explicitly. At the very least, it is scholarly courtesy.

2. Hunt's terminology is contentious. The terms he uses, which are his own and not direct quotations, clearly connote moral disapproval ('egoistic', 'coldly calculating' and 'essentially inert' leading to 'just plain lazy' in particular). For example, Chambers define calculating thus:

calculating adj, derog deliberately shrewd and selfish, especially in terms of how one can use other people and situations to benefit oneself.

Use of a derogatory adjective is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We should either quote Hunt directly with ascription, or alter his terms to ones which are less moralised. Indeed, he uses some less moralised terms at points himself: for instance, what is wrong with using 'rational' in place of 'calculating'?

3. In the 'Malthus' section of the book (pp. 49--51), Hunt quotes no-one other than Malthus. No other source at all, primary or secondary. His assertion that classical liberals depended on Malthus is completely unevidenced. Given that, Wikipedia cannot quote Hunt's view as a fact but should quote it as his view, or some similar term.

Wooster (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know we often differ in many respects, but I just wanted to say that I admire your ability to keep cool, your ability to focus on adherence to policy rather than petty personal issues, and your efforts to build a high-quality encyclopedia.

You do a great job at keeping a cool head in conflicts, and I generally feel that even when I'm disagreeing with you, that we are having a productive discussion and that each side is at least understanding and responding to the other's position.

I also appreciate your willingness to remain open-minded and to hear out people with views which contradict your own. You regularly advocate for the use of the highest-quality sources, whatever viewpoint they express. I rarely see you applying double standards to sources, even if they disagree with your personal beliefs.

You seem to understand well that we are building an encyclopedia (a compendium of objectively presented and factual information about the world), rather than compiling a repository of pop-culture trivia and misinformation.

Overall, I just wanted to thank you acting as a good example -- observing your behavior has helped me improve the approach I take to editing in many respects.

Cheers! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pretty amazed at how calm you manage to be. Well done! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not only that but these pseudo-oranges only represent a tiny minority of oranges..."

couple that quote with the your Jews and Greed analogy, and your recent efforts have been quite spectacular. Thanks for the wise words in the various discussions. BigK HeX (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you forgot to sign. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipaedia! At 05:34, 17 September 2010, you said in the Libertarianism talk page, "...all you are doing is persuading us that your groupuscule is misleading and sacrifices honesty." Please refrain from making unjustified allegations of dishonesty against other editors. Feel free to learn more about the need for such Wikipaedian etiquette at WP:GOODFAITH. BlueRobe (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, TFD i have never said GW is a hoax ok. Now i have offered to help mediate the articles current conflict, i also asked editors to comment on content, yet all you have done thus far is comment on me, please refrain from doing so and perhaps the article can move forward? mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, an RFC... on a tag? That strike me as just taking focus from the content. I asked people on the page to comment on content not editors and you just persisted in discussing mark - which is irrelevant and something of a bad faith judgement. I'm trying to help keep things calm and constructive and the best way to do that is work on the content --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had two recent RfCs on this subject and since you do not accept the consensus that the article is neutral and insist on having a POV tag, it is necessary to revisit RfC. I mentioned mark nutley because he pushes fringe views and has sanctions against him for doing that and his offer of independence is unbelievable. mark nutley is either unable or unwilling to follow policy in editing articles. TFD (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marks sanctions on other topics is irrelevant - unless he brings in fringe views, which we then deal with at the time. This is the basis of WP:AGF. At the end of the day this is a single tag; I have no real interest whether it is there or not - what I do want is to see content discussion. Please, if you want the RFC fine, but at least take a look at my "moving forward" bullets and perhaps stick some contribution in on the three hit list items under discussion. The aim here is to bring the talk page to discussing the topic, and RFC for including a tag is overkill --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have now had two recent RfCs on the neutrality of the article and since some editors, none of whom are willing to provide any sources to support their viewpoints. claim that the results are insufficient to remove the tags, an RfC on this issue is appropriate. Of course if these editors were reasonable, then that would be unneccessary, but is needed because of their failure to accept the results of the RfCs. If these editors want the tags to remain then at least they should provide some reasons for them. mark nutley's offer to "mediate" is disingenuous because his conduct shows that he is unwilling to follow neutrality or use reliable sources. The fact this happened on another group of articles is irrelevant. If you polled the editors who want the POV tag, they probably all agree with mark nutley's fringe views on global warming. TFD (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in Talk:Libertarianism, the previous RfC on this issue, which was also initiated by TFD, is here. Despite the vote coming out as 8 votes for "POV tag in inappropriate" against 6 votes for "POV tag is appropriate", TFD is describing that as an "overwhelming" consensus for removing the POV tag. BlueRobe (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, maybe it would be wise for you to consider ceasing your "casting of aspersions" against other editors on talk pages. Have you learned anything from the CC ArbCom? You've been making baseless charges about me for quite a while now, across numerous talk pages, and you do it in every dispute resolution discussion as well, derailing DR. From your talk page, it looks like I'm not the only one. I suggest that when you malign other editors, you include a diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, TFD's sudden and unprovoked attack against Marknutley (here, and here) has come completely out of the blue and reeks of violations of WP:CIVIL. As far as I can tell, all that Marknutley has done to inspire TFD's apparent hostility is make a friendly gesture and suggest that we all WP:PlayNice for the benefit of the editorial community. I'm all for pouncing on blatantly biased or provocative editors when they ask for it, but Marknutley has done nothing to deserve this unwarranted attack by TFD. BlueRobe (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved with CC Arbcom and in this case I have asked other editors to observe the results of dispute resolution and since they have not have requested additional dispute resolution, which btw is not the same thing as "derailing" dispute resolution. mark nutley's insistence on fringe views and fringe sources shows that he lacks the objectivity to help mediate in Libertarianism and I would like to know if you support the approach he has taken to this topic. BTW you have consistently promoted views on Venezuela which you are unable to support with reliable sources. The fact that some editors would prefer that Wikipedia show bias rather than neutrality is not something that I take personally. People are more offended by attacks on their belief systems than by anything else. but you and I can improve that by ensuring that WP represents mainstream views of subjects and take our differences of opinions to other forums. I have no opinion on either Venezuela or libertarianism and came to those articles in order to understand them. But I recognize garbage sources and fringe theories when I see them. The irony is that presenting these types of sources (e.g., people who claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda) you are creating sympathy for your enemies, because you are offering readers no choice between a neoconservative and a bolivarian view. TFD (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]