User talk:Causteau/Archive 1

E3b discussion
You may feel that someone who makes a major re-edit and then expects discussion before someone does a revert is being unfair. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. --80.200.59.250 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
To all viewing my talk page: the above "sockpuppetry case" template was added by a user called. Gadaa is an editor with a pending sockpuppet case that is upset with me over my reluctance to allow him and his many different usernames to insert POV and original research into the Press TV article as well as a couple of other pages around Wikipedia. Notice the above template is empty; it's just a heading with no links in it. This is because there is, in fact, no open sockpuppetry case that he can link to. The above is Gadaa's way of: 1)attempting to cast aspersions on my editing, 2)to discourage me from further standing in his way, and 3)to get me to delete the above template (like he did here with regard to his own very real sockpuppet case) so that he may then turn around and loudly proclaim that I am trying to "conceal" my open sockpuppet case, nevermind the fact that there is no sockpuppet case on me, open or otherwise -- just an annoying blank template some bitter, irrational editor put on my talk page. Causteau (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

E3b update
Your edits all seem fine even if they are not always my preference, which is of course the best any Wikipedia editor can ask for. In my opinion it is up to the two of us to decide when to remove the warning box on the article (which might be discouraging others from contributing). I'm happy that I've made all the points I wanted to make, and I think you understand and perhaps even sympathize a bit with them. Most importantly I am starting to think you are not going to start doing large reverts. If that is true, then please go through the article again, make sure it is "reasonable" enough that we've got rid of anything which might now be, or might easily be edited into, something against our core concerns, and perhaps you can do the honors of removing that box. By the way, some of the bits you edited could still have better sourcing! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Language family categorizations
Hi -- I've noticed that you've been editing back some of my recent categorization changes. I've also been told by another user that there is some disagreement with them. Could you tell me your reasoning for language article categorization so I can understand better how you'd prefer it done? Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I asked the other user, do you think this should apply to the language family articles only or to every individual language article? Aelfthrytha (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I understand you to mean is that the individual language articles should be filed under every grouping they fall under. I disagree with that method of filing as a matter of wikipedia policy / organization because as I have mentioned, it results in 1) too many articles in the upper level categories for them to be useful in finding articles, and 2) too many categories on the end of language articles. On the other hand, it might possibly make articles easier to find (as I think you believe). If you have other reasoning why they should be categorized that way, please explain because I'm not sure I understand your position. For the basic info on Categorization policy / reasoning, please see Categorization. Categorization and subcategories goes into more detail on the specific topic here - some reasons there weigh in favor of your position, some weigh in favor of mine. Last, please do not begin reverting until we've come to a consensus. Aelfthrytha (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Socks uncovered
Not sure if you remember getting into a revert war with in the Arab world article back in March, but Afbibwei has been uncovered as being one of the two dozen sockpuppets used by. For more info, please see: Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ethiopian-Adal War
Just a suggestion: you may want to explain the reasons why this was not a civil war on the Talk page. If you did this, it would bring you in line with Wikipedia's suggested best practices, as explained at WP:BRD. -- llywrch (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Al Azhar
You have my aid. I have seen this many, many times before. Anonymous editors looking to insert their own personal opinions believe that by being persistent and rude that they can get their way. It's nothing new. The same guy was inserting POV edits on other articles too. I'm always glad to help with these things for the sake of keeping Wikipedia POV free. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw it. These kinds of dudes irritate me to no end.  I'll be on it now as well.  In the meantime, have you sought administrative action yet? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at my talkpage. Also, can you please give me links to the WP:AN threads?  Thanks, Elonka 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking through the various pages. However, let me caution you that you should stop reverting at this point.  You've made 4 reverts in 24 hours at Al-Azhar University, and so, per WP:3RR, pretty much any admin could come along and block you for that.  The edits by the anon are not clear vandalism.  His edit summaries have been unhelpful (as have yours), but the anon has been adding sources and quotes, and you've just been reverting him wholesale.  If the anon comes back, and includes sources, do not just revert.  Instead, try to see if you can change the edit to better reflect what is actually in the sources.  You can also move the sources to another part of the article, to get them out of the lead.  But the reverting and uncivil edit summaries must stop, from both sides. --Elonka 05:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made several reverts in a short span of time... but so has the anonymous editor. And yes, I may at times have been a little uncivil (if calling someone a vandal based on his constant POV edits counts), but that's to be expected after repeatedly being on the receiving end of rude comments and aggressive talk. It's also subsequent to having repeatedly asked this anonymous user not to make things personal. What's more, I haven't written in any POV in the text (unlike this user) or inserted irrelevant, dummy sources to create an illusion of legitimacy like he has. What I was doing was reverting to one direct quote from a source the anonymous user himself provided -- that is literally all that differentiated "my" version from that of the anonymous guy. And I was doing this with the support and blessings of another editor, not all by my lonesome. If, for whatever reason, you think that that other user's one sentence is preferable to the one both Mezzo and I support, then please say so and I will of course abide by your ruling. It won't, however, change the fact that this anonymous user is a vandal that has inserted anti-Sunni POV all over Wikipedia and will continue to do so unless he is properly dealt with. As Mezzo has just pointed out, this anonymous user has now even resorted to removing all reference to terrorism in the external links of pages on known terrorists. Where exactly does the buck stop? Causteau (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Azhar
Talk about POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Is something wrong with you? I want to keep the article factual and accurate and, hours after I fixed it with a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, you revert it and call your version a consensus version. Let it go. Why don't you just leave your fanaticism aside and have a shred of respect for yourself, only for a while, and agree with the version as it is written in Encyclopedia Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeated insertion of "Saladin converted Egyptians by force"?

   . Do you think whoever reads your comments will not bother to actually see through your lies and actually check the history page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't insult my intelligence and that of reading parties. You have repeatedly inserted the blatant LIE that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam", which you also happen to have personally authored. You've done this a record of 6 times on the Al-Azhar University page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 * You first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called you on it, you began tacking on a bunch of bogus, irrelevant, unrelated, dummy sources after it to create the illusion that what you are saying was factual instead of the lame, transparent POV it was and is. I know your sources for the above statement are bogus cause I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page. Bummer, eh? Well, here it is again, just for old times sake:
 * None of the sources you supplied support your argument that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". Your first source simply asserts that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". The second source is a series of pay-per-view articles that also makes no mention of Saladin coercing anyone to do anything, let alone "forcing" Egyptians to convert to Sunni Islam. The third source only states that "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam". The fourth source's -- some guy's blog -- lone mention of Saladin is in the following benign phrase: "Al-Azhar is perhaps the world's oldest continuous university and has been since the time of Saladin a major center of Sunni religious authority". And the fifth states that "Saladin converted the university into an agency of orthodoxy as part of his war against Western crusaders". Again, nowhere does it state that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". That's original research, plain and simple.


 * You also tried insert that same slanderous LIE about Saladin "forcibly" converting Egyptians to Sunni Islam not once, but twice on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page: 7, 8
 * Both Mezzo and I have exposed your dishonest editing practices ad nauseam on the talk page. Your last ditch attempt at trying to salvage your "reputation" here, at trying desperately not to appear like an anonymous serial vandal, is transparent and, frankly, more than a little absurd. While "your" version of the article (which amounts to one line of difference with "mine") may indeed now finally have a legitimate source, the direct quote it replaced in "my" version was sourced long before the one in "your" edit. Both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to yours; that's what we mean by consensus. We clearly asked you to "respect the consensus version until mediation can be finished", but you've opted in the interim to yet again go it alone and impose on the world your own personal view of the issue at hand -- other editors be damned. I'm sure you'd love nothing more than for us to "let it go", but that's not exactly going to happen given your very dubious editing history and your repeated refusal to accord your fellow editors the same level of respect you somehow have the audacity to demand in return. Causteau (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think i've figured out who this guy is. I opened up a case on WP:SSP, if you have the time see if you can go on there and compare the editing histories. Any comments would be much appreciated. I knew something seemed familiar about this guy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Press TV article?
There seems to be a serious problem at the Press TV article. Any detailed criticism of Press TV is being deleted by you repeatedly. That could translate to vandalism. But it is better to discuss this issue since you seem genuine about your edits. Removing sourced articles and deleting whole sections does not help. Since your intention seems defending Press TV, It would be more appropriate to make edits by adding "the otherside of story" or the opposing views instead of randomly deleting sourced sections. Thank you. --Gadaa 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nasserism
I've added to the citation and I left a note for the editor. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. ''Also, please read WP:NPOV. Pushing an agenda against Turkey doesn't help when you're making large deletions of cited material either.'' Rushyo   Talk  20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Left a response on your page. Causteau (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I think I made a mistake with regards to what was actually added or removed. I or Wikipedia had mixed up the content and so I thought the other edits (the incorrect ones you had reverted) were yours. Apologises. - Rushyo  Talk  10:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Socotra
Hello,

You have written The archipelago of Socotra was part of the Governorate of Aden, but recently, the government of Yemen attached it to the Hadhramaut Governorate. Could you please tell me where have you found this information? -- Xfigpower ( yak yak ) 13:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Left a response on your page. Causteau (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ahmad Gragn
How is that information OR? All that is does is explain the evidence from the most important source on the man, without drawing any firm conclusions. I have successfully defended its inclusion in the past, so I do not understand your current disagreement. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to explain this to you in any other way, but I am the person who has helped to write Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, so your pointer does not provide me with any useful explanation for your objection. This policy does not exclude using primary sources, nor is it intended to do so. Further, at the risk of obnoxiousness, this information is provided without any attempt of drawing any novel or innovative conclusion; if it does so, please explain. Otherwise, I can't help but wonder if you are attempting exclude any dissenting opinion to Ahmad Gragn's ethnicity than that he was Somali -- & there are a number of writers who do advocate this. For example, Paul Henze (Layers of Time); I.M. Lewis (A Modern History of the Somali); & IIRC, Richard Pankhurst (The Ethopian Borderlands). I also refer you to the Talk page, where this issue has been hashed out before, with further examples of opinions about the Imam's non-Somali ancestry. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at Vassyana's response, & found it equally uninformative; beyond a brief assertion that he agrees with your reading, I find little there I can use to fix the problem. It would appear that he did little more than quickly read the passage you cut out, & provide an off-the-cuff opinion; I wonder if he would write the same thing had he known you were going to delete it entirely. I am disappointed that you did not try to obtain my opinion on this matter at the time, because I do sincerely believe that I am not inserting either a POV or original research. -- llywrch (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moors
Hi: two things. Please use the Talk page (as I did) when making major or controversial changes in articles. 2: please don't move references which happen to include link out of the references section. Please see the Manual of Style pages on references if you are unfamiliar with this. As these references apply directly to topics covered in lead, they need to remain in references. They may also be placed additionally in External links if you like. Thank T L Miles (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to cause offense: it was not my intent! I would ask that you Assume Good Faith, as well as civility. As far as references please see Citing_sources "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the 'References' or 'Notes' section, and are usually not included in 'Further reading' or 'External links'. However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic. The Wikipedia guideline for external links that are not used as sources can be found in Wikipedia:External links."

I would note, and again not offense is intended, that these are Wikipedia policies, which while sometimes couter intuitive, are needed to build the encyclopedia in collaboration.

Please also do take a look at Consensus on how we can use the Talk page on building a article all of us can be pleased with. I have no desire to get involved in a revert war, but adding an edits summary that my edits are POV and you're removing them is not really consensus building, is it?

Again, not trying to make you life difficult, but we need to find a happy middle ground here. If that can't be done, I'm happy to engage in any Dispute resolution you might suggest. All the best, T L Miles (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you over this. But I will note that I consider your tone, from the edit summaries on, as extremely uncivil if not downright dismissive of others.  As you apparently have only been here since March, I thought there may be some misunderstanding of the at times complex Wikipedia policies.  But judging by this talk page, I believe you to be someone who is in near constant conflict with others and I have no desire to be your latest target.  Best of luck.  T L Miles (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)