User talk:Rockypedia/Archive 5

Re:
I don't care for that sentence, I really don't care and I restored that sentence only a single time because I accidentially used the save button instead of a preview. Please don't turn whatever your motivation is against me. What I do is to add/restore relevant foreign names per WP:PLACE. German names of these villages are relevant because this region used to be inhabited by Germans. I would really appreciate if we could simply make productive edits and if you could just stop deleting relevant foreign names.

Just out of curiosity: Do you seriously deny that the local population fled/was expelled after WWII? HerkusMonte (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please confine the conversation to the place where it started (per WP:MULTI); ie, your talk page. Rockypedia (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits
Thank you for your recent edits, unfortunately many Polish locations have entries vandalized by extreme German nationalist claims about "ethnic cleansing". Often it were simply Nazi colonists settled after 1939 who were simply moved back to Germany once Nazis lost the war as per legal population transfer agreed in international treaties.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * well, I'm working my way through them. There were about 2000 when I started, there's now less than 400. I appreciate that someone noticed. Rockypedia (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism of german IP
Hallo. Sorry for my english. User "Kiteinthewind" removed my editions of german-nazi propaganda IP "ethnically cleansed". See please here and here. Can you help ? 85.176.2.235 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor should have attempted to seek consensus on the edits, which he did not appear to have attempted. Therefore, the edits were disruptive. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly it seems to have been handled. However, I definitely have a problem with the unsourced addition of the same copy-pasted paragraph being added to literally every village and town page in western Poland; it's totally POV, it was all added by one IP-hopping editor who also has an account here (and thus may be guilty of sockpuppetry) and I intend to rectify it. But yes, in this case, the good-faith edits by THIS anon IP should have been followed up by some talk. They weren't, so that IP has been blocked. I would encourage that editor, if you are reading this, to register an account. It's easy and free, and some editors may take you more seriously. Rockypedia (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Ted Bundy. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please see extensive Talk page discussion and do not change official CoD David J Johnson (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, hang on, slugger. I saw the cause of death and it struck me as a very weird way of wording his execution. You reverted and directed me to the talk page, and I had been unaware that a discussion had taken place on that very topic. So I read it. Slapping a "stop being disruptive" and threatening me with a block for one innocuous edit seems a bit heavy-handed, to say the least. You treat all your friends this way? Rockypedia (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I only warn folk who cannot be bothered to check the previous history of this article and cannot abide by the properly referenced Cause of Death. That is not "heavy-handed", just a correct reaction to sloppy editing. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Rockypedia (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note for the permanent record that after I started an RfC here, and (of course) the consensus was that DoctorJoeE 's wording was "idiotic" not the preferred way of stating a cause of death, he voluntarily changed it back to "Execution by electrocution" - the same wording that my friend David J Johnson here felt was "sloppy editing" and warranted a threat of a block. I eagerly await his warning to DoctorJoe for sloppy editing, and am taking bets on whether he will apologize to me before or after the Second Coming. Cheers, everybody! Rockypedia (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a 'suicide.' I always thought the judge's pronouncement at Ted Bundy's execution ("Best of luck to you, young man") was the height of judicial understatement.  [Since irony doesn't translate well through a keyboard, please imagine the appropriate emoticon).  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Emailed you
Doug Weller talk 19:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: ZOG
If my notable, well-sourced info needs to be in the body as well as the lead, move it into the body rather than deleting it. Franzboas (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're aware that your edits have a lot more problems than just being in the summary, and I'd advise you to seek input on those edits on the talk page of Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory before you attempt to re-add them, because that's where the discussion is going to end up anyway. Rockypedia (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed that change on the talk page a few hours ago, with that exact source and quote, and you never commented on it.
 * I won't bicker on your user talk page further, though. Franzboas (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you within minutes of your proposal. Here's a thought: take every anti-Semite edit you think of, and propose it on the talk page, and wait for a response before you go ahead and make the change. How's that sound? Rockypedia (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

because i'm easily amused
I won't do it if you would I rather not, but I was thinking of wiki-stalking you. Just so my name would appear next to yours. I am easily amused. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"revert anon IP editorializing"
I saw you and an IP editor removing the same portion of content from several pages with the edit summary "revert anon IP editorializing". Do you mind giving some context to this? I'm just curious to know (If this is a large-scale disruption, you'd be better off reporting it to someone who uses AWB - it's probably easier to detect those words using that program and making changes quickly, although I've never used it myself so I'm not entirely sure how efficient it is). Happy editing! Jiten Dhandha •  talk  •  contributions  • 20:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For a long time period between 2015 and late 2016, an IP-hopping editor was making copy-paste changes to all of the villages and towns in present-day Poland, adding commentary that either stated "Germans were ethnically cleansed", or "Germans were expelled and replaced by Poles." Naturally these aren't acceptable edits - I wouldn't go through every town and village in, say, Massachusetts and state "prior to 1783, this town was part of the British Empire; after 1783 all of the British were expelled by Americans." I felt those edits were massively POV as well as being copy-pasta.
 * I wasn't aware of the anon IP aping my edits till you just pointed that out; I assume you mean this one? If so, that IP is in Germany as well, I am in the US. I have no idea who that is; he's obviously doing exactly what I've been doing, even using the same edit summary line. However, he hasn't tried to contact me, or vice versa.
 * I'll look into AWB; I'm a casual editor and I have no idea how to use mass-edit tools, or even what they are capable of. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an experienced editor either (if we go by edit count, you're far ahead of me), so I may not be able to directly help you with this but I've been around reverting unconstructive edits and handling vandals for a while now. I just read your user-page and it mentioned the "anonymous German IP-hopper" and his edits to "2,000 town and village pages". If the scale of disruption is indeed to that extent, then an intervention by someone who is more experienced will be needed. Perhaps talk to an admin who can judge whether the mass-scale edits are required or not? If you have their permission, then I think the request can be posted at AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks so that someone who knows how to work with AWB can resolve the issue (as opposed to directly posting a request there which can get controversial). If you need help with contacting someone or just want to talk about this issue, feel free to post on my talk page, or reply here (I've added your page to my watchlist, if you dont mind me doing so). :) Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 22:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll check it out when I have time. thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

List of The Howard Stern Show staff
A more detailed edit summary would of avoided all this. Happy editing, -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "would've" Rockypedia (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

RFAR withdrawn
The request for arbitration in which you were involved has been withdrawn by the filing party. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  20:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews in cultural anthropology and ethnography
Users such as User:MShabazz have reviewed and supported not only mentioning that people in these fields are Jewish, but mentioning in the article that their field was populated mostly by Jews. There are several mainstream sources dedicated to this concept. Here are three mainstream sources I've used to cite it, although I've come across several more in my research.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00141844.2011.590218

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ae.1988.15.3.02a00100/full

Franzboas (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So an admitted sockpuppet cites the opinion of exactly one (1) other editor that agrees with him, and I'm supposed to believe that it's suddenly okay to highlight a BLP's ethnic background just because his career field has a ""preponderance of Jews" in it? Have you lost your mind? Rockypedia (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the sources? Franzboas (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have an actual argument? Franzboas (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I supported  what ? I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. See User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 63. I wrote, and I continue to believe, that "in most instances, a person's religion (or that of their parents) is meaningless trivia—unless an editor wanted to drive home the point that these people are Jooooooooz." — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Back when I added religion sentences to several cultural anthropologists' articles, you made a few non-trivial changes and corrections (indicating that you had read them) without challenging their notability. Because you've been eager to challenge my additions' notability in the past, I figured this meant there wasn't a strong counterargument. Franzboas (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, after your "Jooooooooz" comment you quoted above, I pointed out that there are many reliable academic sources that associate Jewish communities, Jewish culture, and Jewish religious values with certain social movements (e.g. Zionism, Boasian anthropology, pro-immigration activism, LGBTQ activism). You seemed to cede the point and didn't question me or make further knee-jerk reversions, so I thought we had come to an agreement. Franzboas (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When I agree with someone, I typically say something like "You're right" or "I agree with you". Please don't mistake the fact that I have better things to do with my time than argue and edit-war with an editor who appears to be tone-deaf to her or his antisemitism with the idea that I agree with you or support what you're doing. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling me an "antisemite" for the twentieth time doesn't change anything. It seems that every week, someone comes along who thinks they can yell at me and call me names until I leave. They generally demonstrate no interest in discussing the merits of my additions. I'm happy to discuss my changes, but I am not going to be driven off Wikipedia by harassment and attrition. Franzboas (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here. Rockypedia (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The "merits" of your additions? That certain fields of endeavor are teeming with Jooooooooz, so it's relevant to point out which people in the field are Jooooooooz? That Jooooooooz can't write objectively about racism or antisemitism, that the history books they write can't be trusted, and they can't be trusted to tell the truth about the Middle East, so it's important to point out which ones are Jooooooooz? Have I accurately summarized the "merits" of your additions? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that not only has Franzboas (talk) been blocked indefinitely, but apparently his master account (known to the good folks at ArbCom) has apparently been recommended for a block as well. In my view, the right call. Better an overdue block than no block at all. The system works, justice done, another POV-pushing editor gone. Rockypedia (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail
Sent you an email to discuss inappropriate links MAlanH (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ohm values
Thanks for your attention to the resistance article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Rockypedia (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

AdminBoard notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Moxy (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop edit warring with Synthwave.94 over citation format, or I'll seriously consider blocking you. This has gone on long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the intervention, as my discussions with Synthwave asking him to stop making format changes for no reason have gone nowhere. Rockypedia (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion Page
Stop deleting discussion page comments without discussion. Neither Soapbox nor Forum are listed under the valid reasons for unilaterally deleting comments. You are violating policy.

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines 2601:47:4100:2EDC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're already being handled nicely by other editors who have jumped in before I saw this message, so I'm just gonna let it go this time. Nice talking with you, though. Good luck with your off-topic comments on talk pages. Rockypedia (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * aaaaaand you've been blocked. Well, I think the admins nailed this one on the head. Rockypedia (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning...the BLP violations are real
You restored a blatant BLP violation that was removed at Jared Taylor. I've fulfilled my obligation, and you have been warned that what you did is a violation of BLP. Have you been notified of BLP DS? I'm not going to add another warning here in the event you've already been warned. Atsme 📞📧 04:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your motivation is for this very scary warning, but I'm going to assume good faith, and as such, I can assure you that the text you're removing has been well-researched and is well-sourced. If you are not acting in good faith, and this message on talk page is merely designed to scare me in some odd way, all I can say is.... good luck with that approach. Rockypedia (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for AGF but as you know, we are required to post such warnings, and I don't like to template the regulars. I presumed by your edit summary that you knew I had challenged derogatory statements in that BLP for being stated in Wiki voice. NPOV policy clearly states:


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
 * Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
 * All 3 of the above point directly to the derogatory terms used on a BLP because the contentious labels are opinions, not statements of fact. As such, they are noncompliant per BLP, and that is what should concern you because it states clearly: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. There's a discussion at the TP in which I explained my position in further detail based on the cited sources and what policy considers opinion vs fact. Atsme 📞📧 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree. As you pointed out, the material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed. Of course, the material on the Taylor page is neither of those things. That's been established through several exhaustive discussions on the talk page, which you can easily find in the archives. Rockypedia (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you were right, but it hasn't been "established". It's being discussed because the violation is still present in that the derogatory/contentious labels are stated as fact in WP voice in the lead, and that is a blatant violation. Atsme 📞📧 17:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)