User talk:The Squicks/Archive 2

You...sire...

Are needed in ever single I/P article. Thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts..

..on how best to persuade Jimmi Hugh to play nice at Geert Wilders and comply with guidelines etc ? It looks like he's going to continue as before rather than just finding a source for Heckler's Veto or letting it drop. His behavior is bit puzzling especially the personal attacks and odd edit summaries. I'm holding off on escalating it in the hope that he might see reason eventually. Anyway, let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Huey Lewis and the News

Yay! I am VERY happy to see other people using the userbox I created. Thank you Fore! adding it to your page! ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock on. The Squicks (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar; your input on that page is likewise appreciated. Very difficult to keep a rational discourse going while personal attacks are flying but you keep a cool head under pressure. csloat (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob.

P.S. Given that the discussion at Talk:Juan Cole seemed ended (noone disputed the consensus, and noone wanted to put sanctions on any editor) I went ahead and closed it. The Squicks (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did dispute consensus, actually, mostly because there wasn't one. You insisted on fighting with me, but I thought it be easiest just to walk away from it. As for the resolved tag, generally that's a poor idea on a very recent discussion that could still be live (if, for example, someone else wanted to weigh in). You're free to tag whatever you like; I can't promise not to edit in talk sections you tag, but otherwise, knock yourself out. IronDuke 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote But I said I wasn't going to fight over it, and I'm not, unless consensus should change at some time in the future, which I don't have any specific reason to anticipate will happen. Cheers.

So, you are taking that back? The Squicks (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No... what gave that idea? IronDuke 20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you just posted "I did dispute consensus, actually, mostly because there wasn't one" and "I can't promise not to edit in talk sections you tag".

Which is it? Are you saying that the issue is at least temporarily closed (of course, you and I can't see into the future) or are you saying that you want to keep this going? The Squicks (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The two statements you quote do not contradict each other. IronDuke 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you let this go? Either it is closed or it isn't.The Squicks (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I'm not letting this go. IronDuke 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. The Squicks (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation

Your post below bewildered me: 'Regardless of whatever prior feelings I had toward the Palestinians, the image that Sceptic linked to of a Palestinian man brutally mistreating a harmless pink fluffy bunny that only wanted to be his friend has torn it.

I bet they kick puppies in their spare time as well. / sarc'

Can you say it again? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian news article that you linked to had a picture of a man throwing up a pink bunny up in the air. I then joked about the stupidity of the newspaper's picture. The Squicks (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

--1105김상희 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I want to the precise picture information.

Cohen

No, I have not violated that policy. The policy you cited says "three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". So you are actually closer to violating that policy than me.--NewLionDragon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You made three edits deleting the content in less than 12 hours. So, you broke it. You violated it.

I said that I did not care about this fact because I wanted you to actually comment about the issue on the talk page rather than making endless warring edits. The Squicks (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WP:3RR does not apply to BLP-related violations. Secondly, I have 3 reverts within the last 24 hours, so I have not had a 4th revert within 24hr period, and therefore have not violated the policy you cited. If you, ShamWow, Whyzeee wish to revert again in light of the administrator's clear ruling on the issue , go ahead, I won't revert you back this time. What I will do in that case, is calling Mr Cohen, and having him file a formal complaint with Wikimedia foundation about pro-Likud editors turning his biography into an an attack page, despite the opposition of neutral editors and several administrators. --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pro-Likud?!! Are you kidding? After all the anti-Israel stuff that I've added in Gaza War and Avigdor Lieberman and King David Hotel Bombing and Arab Peace Initiative and all the other I/P articles I look at? It boggles the mind. The Squicks (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Mr. Cohen, you seem to be unaware of the fact that I added 5000+ bytes of positive or neutral background information in his article as well as starting pages for both of his books: Hearts Grown Brutal and Soldiers and Slaves.

If you are serious, than the number for the NYT editorial office is 212-556-1234. Go crazy. The Squicks (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you per se. I don't like to name names, but I was talking about the two editors who originally added the disputed material to that BLP (ShamWow and Whyzeee). Just take a look at their contributions, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what their points of views and positions are. --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The number is 212-556-1234. The Squicks (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need NYT's number, if needed, I'll contact him personally. --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

No problem. Keep up the good work. You really put in a lot of work into that article and have been committed to maintaining a neutral point of view.

Still kind of new to Wikipedia. Do you mind if I ever use you as a resource for Wiki-related questions? Thanks. ShamWow (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The Squicks (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle tags

Hi, thanks for the tags for TGGWS. Controversial and calmtalk should have been there a long time ago! I'm curious though, why is it C rather than B class? It deals with the subject at exhaustive length, prose is without obvious errors, and there are many inline citations. It's probably too long, but that tends to be the nature of controversial subjects where everyone wants to make sure their angle is covered. If you could explain why it isn't a B class (so we can look at improving it) that would be great. --Merlinme (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I would prefer to talk about it there rather than here, though. The Squicks (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009‎

Yes, the article needs to be expanded, and we are discussing it on the talk page. At least one section, the Speech, is already tagged. I don't see how tagging the entire article for expansion is helpful, as most articles require expansion in the first place. Generally, the tag is used to alert other editors to the problem, and we're already aware of it and working on it. I'm thinking of removing the tag you added as a result. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree that "most articles require expansion in the first place". The whole point of the tag was to draw attention from readers to tell them that the topic is both very important but at the same time is deeply incomplete. The Squicks (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia statistics, most articles are stubs requiring expansion. As I said above, we are already aware of the problem, and the reader is directed to the talk page to contribute to the discussion. I don't see the need for the tag. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Happyme22 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright

Hi, I got involved in your request at User talk:GHcool#Jeremiah Wright. Could you tell me (here) why you didn't put this on the JW-Talkpage? If no big deal, I suggest we take it to that page. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

References

The reference you keep deleting supports the content that the protests were also against Obama, and not just his policies. The reference contains the sentence, "Many demonstrators carried American flags and signs with anti-Obama and anti-tax slogans. One placard even suggested a change of job for the US president: "Obama for president of Cuba," it read." You have been removing this reference, and incorrectly claiming that it is already contained in another reference. This is not the case. Please review your edits in this matter. Thank you in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference that you keep ignoring says "Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day" and "Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day", which is more than enough to cite that the protests where against Obama.

Please stop this foolishness. The Squicks (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced by the removal of the "against Obama" aspect by User:Sbowers3, your limited source was apparently not "more than enough to cite that the protests were against Obama." When I replaced the original source that you had censored out of the article, editor Sbowers3's concerns were satisfied. You would know this if you followed the talk page for the article. Yet you continued to attempt to remove that reference for motivations one can only guess, and continued to replace it with an inferior reference that did not contain the critical information. I have requested that you cease this maneuvering, and review your edits. I will not repeat the request again. (...and I have censored nothing - you are referring to a reference that was lost in an edit conflict.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Both references are in the article now. Please do not censor the France 24 one. I will not repeat the request again. The Squicks (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be censored once for it to be censored again. I've censored nothing, and if you persist in casting unfounded accusations, I'd be happy to have third parties review this whole situation. You may wish to be careful of your comments made in anger. Thank you, by the way, for returning the proper reference and formatting it with a cite template (as you did with many references the day before - tedious work, but welcome). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not an allegation; it is a statement of fact. And you should be equally careful as well. Of course, since leaving them both in the lead is an acceptable compromise, this issue can be dropped here and now. The Squicks (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nawww, really -- you make a personal attack, and I refute it. You say it's fact. That doesn't sound like a reasonable point to "drop the issue." So let's get down to the nuts and bolts, and see if we can resolve this pettiness before bringing admins in. Let's start with you providing diffs for this alleged censorship. We'll start there... Xenophrenic (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is here. I had added a perfectly valid reference and you removed it. Fact.

If you wish to pursue a personal vendetta against me, than that is fine. But I would prefer greatly to drop this, since it is fundamentally trivial as per the article itself. The Squicks (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no vendetta against you. I do, however, wish to pursue my defense against personal attacks. You have accused me of censorship, an accusation you, with your experience as an editor here, should not cast about lightly. Prior to that, made a personal attack in an edit summary accusing me of editing out of anger (in all caps no less, how ironic), when I did no such thing. If such slander is trivial to you, then simply retract them -- and end the matter.

As to your fact, you are mistaken. Your "perfectly valid" reference was not valid, and was found so lacking that another editor removed content as not supported by your reference. So I put the original reference back, prompting the other editor to agree it is now legitimate to say "in protest of President Obama". The diff you provided shows I replaced your inferior reference with one that was acceptable to other editors. Further, your diff does not show any censorship, as I left your reference in at the end of that very same paragraph. There was no censorship. The edit I made was by consensus. Your reference was still in the article (but with a minor cite error that was corrected immediately afterward ... edit conflicts be damned). Are we clear yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, your diff does not show any censorship, as I left your reference in at the end of that very same paragraph. There was no censorship. This statement is false, as the edit summary shows. You removed the url and other information to France 24, leaving in the end of the paragraph <ref name=france/> that then did not go to anything.

You have accused me of censorship, an accusation you, with your experience as an editor here, should not cast about lightly. And you have accused me of censorship and of acting in bad faith as well. To that, I do not care and will not pursue actions against you. Regardless, accusations of censorship are not personal attacks; they are made all the time in routine editing. Look at basically any article talk page and you will see it everywhere.

Your "perfectly valid" reference was not valid, and was found so lacking that another editor removed content as not supported by your reference. That editor has made further demands- saying that the Obama mentioning was undue weight- which you and I seem to both oppose. That editor's initial point was disagreed upon by both me and you. Incidentally, how on earth can you say that "Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day" and "Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day" do not indicate that the protesters were in opposition to Obama?

The edit I made was by consensus. If you read the talk page, you can see that there are a multiple of positions being advocated. One, by the other editor, which wanted to either scrub the Obama mentioning entirely or to relegate it down for undue weight. I see no consensus.

I have no vendetta against you. You clearly do, or else you would have dropped this. The thing is: I am not going to apologize or refactor anything I wrote previously. And I'm not going to do anything further to remove any of those references currently in the article. Thus, I am dropping this and am not going to comment about this any further (I reserve the right to make unrelated edits to the article). If you wish to persecute me via Admin power, than do as you wish. The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please do not misrepresent my defense against your personal attacks as a vendetta against you. As you can see in this edit, I reinserted the reference you deleted from the article, while leaving your reference in as well. You again deleted the reference, despite other editors requiring it, and I replaced it here, while leaving your reference in as well. You removed the reference from the article yet again, and I replaced it again, while leaving your reference in as well. And finally, in the diff you provide as evidence of me trying to censor a Wikipedia article, I again replace the reference you deleted from the article while leaving your reference in as well at the end of the paragraph, BUT, as I have repeatedly explained, there was a minor cite error this time which was immediately corrected. It seems you moved the template formatting of the citation to the reference I replaced. We both saw the error and edited in a correction (with your edit beating mine due to an edit conflict). I'm still waiting for you to explain the censorship.

I appreciate you saying that you will not continue to remove references from the article. That, at least, is progress. In answer to your question: "Incidentally, how on earth can you say that "Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day" and "Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day" do not indicate that the protesters were in opposition to Obama?", I never said that. Just the opposite, I said they DO indicate opposition to Obama, but that wasn't enough for other editors, so I reinserted the more critical reference (the one you kept removing).

You are correct that I interpreted your repeated deletion of source references as censorship. I assumed good faith, and assumed you truly believed your reference and mine were identical, but after Sbowers3's objection, and my pointing out the differences, you continued to delete the reference. I am willing to listen to your explanation, of course, but you can't fault my conclusion. I will retract and apologize, of course, if there is a reasonable explanation that I am overlooking.

I disagree that unfounded censorship charges are routine, and not personal attacks, especially after the misunderstanding has been fully explained. Even after knowing what transpired, you are standing behind the personal attack, so yes, you are prompting me to pursue it. It's going to make an administrator roll their eyes at the insignificance of the whole matter, for sure, but at least there will be a truthful resolution. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)