User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2014/May

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bundy standoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Stewart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack
A discussion has begun in order to gain a consensus on whether to include or exclude material involving the CIA and weapons smuggling in the article. Please weigh in on the discussion at the talk page. This may also be a good time to reassess the rating on the article. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Walworth Barbour
I appreciate you making the effort finding a new photo for this article but this edit summary was incorrect. There was no reasonable doubt as to the previous picture's authenticity. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you check the source of that image ? The source did not include any mention of Barbour. Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you missed the first conversation? Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard -- Neil N  talk to me  16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * yep. sorry. I see a mention there, but in any case as reported by that family member I see that it was a mistake. The new photo will do better. Cwobeel (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha. I also missed the first conversation and found the LBJ Library link independently. Please don't do this again; just because someone (a) claims to be a family member and (b) claims not to know who the subject of a photo is, is no reason to replace someone's name in the official photo description with "unnamed person". This may be a shock to you, but people posting on our message boards include their share of trolls, vandals, and, at best, well meaning but mistaken individuals. Try not to do their dirty work for them. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts with Neil Kornze article
Just wanted to thank you for jumping in on the article for Neil Kornze. KConWiki (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like inclusionists :) Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing on article titled Rob Reep
Thank you for your help on the editing of the article titled Rob Reep. After going back and reading the link you sent me on reliable secondary sources, I can see where a few of the ones I cited earlier before it was cleaned up could not pass that test. It looks like it has been cleaned up to compliance. I did read the WP:COI. I am not related to the person the article is referring to, and have no friendship or relationship with him in any manner.

I want to say thank you so much for the help on the article. I believe it is looks correct now. In the future, I will be more careful when searching for reliable secondary sources. I'm hoping to write a few more articles on different subjects in the coming days and weeks, so I think I now have a better idea of what type of things to cite. Thanks for your help. --Boulder1542 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LinnDrum
You recently made an edit to the article LinnDrum identified as "table fix". Unfortunately, this edit is now generating a high-priority error #32 "Double pipe in a link". The problem begins at "John Luongo world renown producer/Mixer on John Waite's...". If you look at the table in the article, you will see that it is improperly formatted at this row. Thank you for your attention to this problem. --LukasMatt (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Checkwiki
 * Thanks will fix that issue Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that your response to this was to post on the "preliminary statements" page. That phase of this case is over, in fact we are at the end of the evidence phase so I will be removing your post there, but I encourage you to submit any actual evidence you may know of to Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobel, my last interaction with your was pretty cordial, why would you make a statement like this? Arzel (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, I have seen you facing off on this subject, which I heard about due to my involvement with the abuse found here. I'm not an editor of political subjects, and I had just chanced upon that one article.  Your admirably vigilant and yet cool history of dealing with this particular violator in the past, is the reason why I learned about WP:TEND and about this arbitration.  So I would like to hand off my summary of that issue to you for your use in arbitration, if you would do so.  I have no experience with that process and I want to avoid dealing with people who are this exceptionally disturbed and disturbing; I just generally do CVU stuff, on a mass basis, and leave it at that because it's too legalistically complicated and just plain sad.  On this issue, I have been corresponding with AGK via email, for my personal edification on the arbitration process, so I can learn what does and doesn't qualify as evidence.


 * So we have the aforementioned thread which he created after ignoring WP:3RR, which contains a rationale of censorship, which contains obstructive instantiation of a needless discussion in defiance of policy, and which is composed of robotically obstinate ignorance of any discussion that doesn't potentially agree. Other than that, all my evidence comes back to your interactions as shown in his afore-linked deleted Talk page; and here, which contains an apparent redefinition of WP:3RR and of consensus, and a confession of extremely broad political biases, as having labeled the entire Wikipedia community as an endemic problem in the world to which he is an exception or antidote, thus self-justifying a tautological bubble.  If you would care to email me, I would be glad to email you my part of the correspondence with AGK, which is my greater summary of the issue, for whatever good that might do.  I believe that I summarized the personality of violation fairly well in my emails, but I'd need to defer to your greater experience and body of evidence, beyond just the one article that I encountered.  Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is an excerpt from my emails with AGK, in case this helps to summarize this case, whether of neocon crusading or not. The links I gave above, mostly of your experience, can be inserted as evidence.

From WP:TEND: "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."

He performs mass deletions and reverts, with very little actual contribution, of anything he disagrees with or that puts what appears to be a pattern of neocon topics in an often actually deservedly negative light. It is egregious serial point of view funneling, along the lines of WP:POVFUNNEL, WP:OWNER, WP:TEND, WP:LAWYERING, WP:CENSOR, and WP:3RR. According to much of his history, if he ever actually engages in a discussion outside of edit-warring comments, it is to initiate a formal process in order to obfuscate, delay, pander, and appeal. He doesn't actually participate in any discussion or respond to any points made, except to tautologically reiterate his own initial foregone conclusion. Then he automatically interprets whatever anyone else does, as being in agreement with him, and he unilaterally redefines consensus or compromise as doing whatever he already wanted to do anyway. Then he robotically and unilaterally proceeds.

It seems that he has a very long history of doing this, which I discovered in the history of his talk page (especially toward the bottom), which he blanked out. This is just part of it, and I gave up reading after this, because it makes me so very sick and sad and I just don't know what to do about someone who is this totally abusively extreme. I expect that there is a lot more.

I joined an existing editor in documenting his series of abuses in response to his attempt to censor Wikipedia. I did my best to try to earnestly educate him and to improve the article according to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia. He has succeeded in enacting the Streisand effect to the max.

I think your summary is very good, you can post it on the Arbitration case page. I prefer to focus on editing, so my participation on the case may be minimal. Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh oh! That's what I was trying to say!  ;)  But sadly, these people try to stop us from doing just that.  :(  I was just deferring to your particular past experience, and wanting to support those who have experience with this process. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that AGK said that I *can't* just post a summary to the page, because the whole process is based on point by point evidence, which fine people such as yourself have created, Cwobeel. ^_^ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Smuckola. Not interested in spending time in arbitration cases. It is a time sink. Cwobeel (talk)
 * In the Talk:TTIP article, editors can see some of the concerns expressed there. I think that this just requires a change of habit: positive editing with adding useful relevant information whether deleting. It's not necessarily a new editor's fault for not knowing this, but it is if the behaviour continues I'd imagine.  Wik idea  18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to your status upgrade. However, when you revert an article, please first have a look at its version history. Also, don't template the regulars. Cheers. --bender235 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice essay, thanks. Per WP:BLP, the burden is on the editor wanting to add or restore content, and the article is not sourced to secondary and reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, you didn't read my comments in the version history, did you? So I'm writing it for the fifth time: Lash's birthdate is given by his authority file at the Library of Congress. --bender235 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul Broun
My edits were not disruptive - they removed an editor's comment which has no source, which you have now restored. we are not allowed to editorialize like that. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than WP:EDITWAR, engage in a discussion on talk page. Also be aware of the policy of WP:3RR Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And the same to you. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

From Juan Riley on 1RR Warning
No real complaints. More a sense of bemusement that as my finger twitched for the second revert (was guessing since I am relatively new here) I was thinking I should just leave it up to cowbell or others when they show up. The irony is of course you sent me the warning..and then reverted the edits I was being castigated for reverting. C'est la vie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanRiley (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC) My next correction brought to you by SineBot..my error. Juan Riley (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

From Juan Riley on Targish things
Sorry about that rant yesterday...but I did feel better afterward. :) I just saw today's talk page and laughed.... I will blame you (jokingly) for opening Pandora's box and asking a rational question of...well best not to say. But at the least..it appears to be bringing this discussion to an end as not WP:something-or-other. Oh...thanks for the review check thingy..it is a good thing right? Juan Riley (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * yes a good thing. Thanks for the note. Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Could use your thoughts...
Over at Robert Garcia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Fyi
RE: Evan Wecksell - initial article was inadequate. more sources added. meets criteria of notability due to VH1 & E! credits as well as Conan. Also a cult following among Theta Chi Fraternity Please allow additions to be made.Evanw219 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources that attest to notability. I searched on Google and could not find anything from such sources. If you find any reputable sources, post them on the talk page and let others decide, as you will be much better served if you avoid editing your own article. Cwobeel (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

More Doug Ose Adverising
Cwobeel,

Just letting you know that someone reverted the edits back to the advertising and biased tone that we previously worked to eliminate. I will revert it, but I think we should put the page on watch again. Thanks, →Hubbardc  →Talk to me!→  08:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

Sorry for new section but you can delete..on MrBill3 and Targ
I presume you knew I was being sarcastic about his reference work. And yes..I am guilty of making ad hominem comments. Juan Riley (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul/Isolationism
Excuse me if I'm doing this wrong. It's my first attempt at this sort of thing. The reference to Ron Paul being an isolationist on Rand Paul's page creates an internal inconsistency on wikipedia. Ron Paul's own page references him as a non-interventionist and his political positions detailed on that page are consistent with the definitions on wikipidia's own page of non-intervention and not that of isolationism. Both of those pages go out of their way to explain that they are distinct from each other and one cannot be both simultaneously, as the current reference on the Rand Paul page implies. In Ron Paul's case specifically, he supports diplomacy and free trade, but not military intervention. The word "isolationist" doesn't appear anywhere on Ron Paul's own page or on his political positions page - although "non-interventionist" does so repeatedly - so why should "isolationist" be used in other articles that reference him? The Huffingtonpost "source" on the Rand Paul page labeling Ron Paul as an isolationist is just editorializing. Using the Huffingtonpost "source" to label Ron Paul an isolationist is no different than using the huffingtonpost to label Sarah Palin a fascist (there are huffingtonpost articles that do so) or using a worldnetdaily article to label Barack Obama a communist (there are articles on that site that do so.) Failing to remove the "isolationist" language simply amounts to a backdoor way of editorializing. AJPEG (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Find sources, attribute the point of view to the source, and then edit. Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * : You want me to find sources explaining why Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, other sources explaining the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism... and then post them all onto Rand Paul's page? OK, I can do that. The sources are easy enough to find - they're already in the relevant wikipedia articles. But I don't think a section on Ron Paul's foreign policy belongs on Rand Paul's page. I think it would be more appropriate to remove references to Ron Paul's political ideology entirely. AJPEG (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)