User talk:Cpsoper

Request to Withdraw RfC
According to "Ending RfC's" policy, you may close your RfC of your own accord. I am asking you to do so since some editors are arguing that while it is open my efforts to introduce a new section touching on the material you identified is inappropriate. Once your RfC is closed, I intend to introduce my suggested new section and issue a new RfC regarding that contribution. (As you will see, since the other editors have refused to expand the section I started for those denying the allegations, I have done so in order to give adequate weight to what the viewpoint the obstructionists hold most dear.)

Thank you for considering this request. I think your withdrawal of your RfC is necessary to refocus the conversation to the obvious fact that the issue of alleged bias is widely covered by multiple reliable source on both sides of that allegation. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that there is no process for 'closing' an RfC in this manner (early closure is only possible where the outcome is clear and undisputed) and to do so, as GodBlessYou2 clearly intends, because the result isn't going the way of the minority of participants, is completely at odds with the consensus-building methodology and principles of Wikipedia. A question was asked. The question is being answered. The RfC must run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, having consulted WP:Requests_for_comment, we have a reasonable sample of opinion, what is needed next is to weight the merits and demerits of the arguments and seek a consensus.Cpsoper (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Absolutely wrong - the RfC must be closed by an uninvolved editor, with a statement as to the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Improper closure of RfC
Since you have chosen to ignore both my advice, and the advice of admin Bishonen on the talk page, I have reverted your improper premature closure of the ongoing RfC at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. You do not get to ignore the clear emerging consensus of an RfC just because you don't like it. If you should be so misguided as to try this again, you can be assured that I will raise the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be sanctioned for your entirely unjustified attempt to subvert the Wikipedia consensus-building process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be quick to endorse them when they hit ANI. Don't do that, Cpsoper.--Adam in MO Talk 21:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, gents, it is noted. The guidance I relied on was this, 'the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly)' as I believe it has been, a reasonable sample has been obtained, and I reiterate that it is better to seek a consensus based on evidential weight for an edit on this matter. Cpsoper (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus as of this moment is clear - that material relating to claims of supposed 'silencing of dissidents' (as you put it - questionable phraseology incidentally for what is suposed to be a neutrally-worded question) does not belong in the article, per WP:WEIGHT. If you are acceptring this, fine - but that isn't what you claimed in your edit, where you stated that "we have a reasonable sample of opinion which needs weighing, and following the request below, I suggest we engage in consensus seeking below". 'The purpose of the RfC was to establish consensus - and when it has done so, we don't go through the same process again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim about WP:weight is disputed, the rfc was to seek comment, that accomplished, consensus building amongst the participants is a distinct process. Cpsoper (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus has already been built - that is the purpose of an RfC. And I'm not going to discuss this here further - any attempt by you to subvert the consensus-building process further will be reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is not a little flawed, as is evident from your contributions here. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "not a little flawed"?--Adam in MO Talk 22:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you detect an internal contradiction in the two halves of the statement? Cpsoper (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Spell it out for me.--Adam in MO Talk 06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Built is perfect, building is imperfect.Cpsoper (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't a cogent sentence. I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.--Adam in MO Talk 18:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's terse and grammatical, but perhaps needs expansion: 'The consensus has already been built', 'to subvert the consensus-building process', the former description alludes to something complete, the second is partial and incomplete. The point is we should indeed be working on an edit based on consensus, however that consensus is, as AtG acknowledges, actually far from complete or satisfactory. Clear enough now, Adam? Cpsoper (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
Sorry for being a bit dense, but can you perhaps tell me what you meant to say with that YouTube link in this edit? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lighten up a little, courtesy of the successors of some the world's toughest rottweilers. Cpsoper (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel stupid, but I still don't get it... --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be obscure, the Red Army were ferocious enough to crush even the Nazis, and it was their sacrifices which really broke Hitler's back, well before D Day, they were the hardest men of all in their day, it's somewhat ironic their choir is now apeing some cheerful American fluff - but personally I rather enjoy the juxtaposition, and I thought it might help AtG, who seems a little dour at times, laughter is good for the bones. Best wishes. Cpsoper (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not really funny, I think. When having a heated discussion with someone, you should avoid this kind of thing, lest it be interpreted wrongly. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, RK, humour often prevents wars from starting in bigger circles than wiki edits, but I agree sometimes things are taken amiss. Cpsoper (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Humor can indeed lubricate relations, but if you're already being very hostile to each other, then humor really needs to be obvious and clearly non-hostile to do the job. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Supersessionism. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please allow the discussion on talk to resolve before adding this back. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am surprised how quick you are to issue edit war notices, on an edit which directly addressed the question raised by another editor. Edit wars are usually characterised as removals and reversions, not the simple addition of a reference to address another editor's concerns!  Cpsoper (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daniel Wani&#39;s picture of his daughter.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Daniel Wani&. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Restored, there was no discussion about its removal. Cpsoper (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Fertility rite
See my message on the talk page and do not remove the label until you correct your self-made claims on specific pre-Islamic rituals being about fertility goddesses and rites. Ajaraman (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded, please see talk. And please do not use religious sites like Christian persecution websites like at Plateau State because they often don't present the full picture, like omitting the attacks on Fulani by others which barely goes noticed often, the latter you removed was noted by Washington Post. Ajaraman (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should spot the difference between removing all religious sites and biased religious sites making half-true or misleading claims. Ajaraman (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The only one removing sourced references is yourself. How do you know that Persecution is biased, when the only source you cite backs it up? Cpsoper (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did they personally know they were attacked because they were Christians? Because I know many of the communities they attack have non-Christian members as well. Here's the usual methodology: group or person is a Christian and is attacked, certainly must be Christian persecution Certainly there may be religious incitement as well. But this conflict between farmers and herders is two-sided and not one-sided, that's what Washington Post said. Ajaraman (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cpsoper, I have found a few sources claiming about Arabs practicing fertility rites. I hope that will be the solution to your problem now. Ajaraman (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Daniel Wani's picture of his daughter.jpg


The file File:Daniel Wani's picture of his daughter.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-free image being used in Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag which fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. A non-free image of Ishag's and Wani's baby daughter isn't necessary for that reader to understand that the two had a baby per WP:FREER. Moreover, the image itself isn't the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the section where it's being used and it's primary function appears to be WP:DECORATIVE and lacking any sufficient contextual justification for its use as required by WP:NFC"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)