User talk:Sandra opposed to terrorism

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whom Gods Destroy (Star Trek: The Original Series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caeser. 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) 11:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 attack in Thalys train car has been nominated for Did You Know

 * Re: Anglade in the 2015 Thalys train attack article. I am not currently working at WP:Dispute resolution, but I am happy to share with you my perspective on the problem.  First and foremost it is very difficult for many editors to understand that the Wikipedia is not about "correctness", but instead it is about information that is verifiable in reliable sources.  (In this case, just drop the word "correctness" and stick to sources.)  Articles are not about miscellaneous information. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. Articles are intended to present and preserve information about things that are important.  WP:Notability has become the measure of that importance.  Articles must be balanced. This means that not only should they be written from a neutral point of view but they should not give undue weight to any particular facet of a topic.  One way to help achieve balance when creating or editing articles on Wikipedia is to focus on why the topic, in this case the event, is important. Where does this event fit in the historical continuum? What is it about this event that makes it special or remarkable? When I do that for this event I find that the names of witnesses or the injured are not important.  Even the names of the passengers who did the take-down don't rate highly in importance.  Certainly other non-related information about someone who happened to be there and happened to talk to the press would not really be appropriate for this article. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You might read the very brief essay at WP:Balance Your Perspectives written in 2008 by a former editor. --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Who on earth is Versus?
Sandra, before you make aspersions against other editors, in edit reasons and on admin talk pages, you should be pretty sure of what you are saying. I don't even know who 'Versus' is and an admin check will reveal that I have never interacted with 'V'. Unfounded accusations won't add to your credibility.Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You made an accusation that I was the only editor supporting one kind of edit but this is not true. However, I am sorry to have linked you to Versus. Versus is a banned editor who was edit warring in the train article about the very same thing you are arguing for. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've opened a section on talk, because we should let others 'wade in', I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of your edits beyond trying to include 'the wounded man', why not mention the catering staff or the train driver in that list or … several others who are mentioned by name but who are clearly uninvolved with the central incident. So far honoured/ not yet honoured makes some sense, until the matter is settled.Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandra, the DRN has been closed, you can't re-open it by adding my name and you are supposed to formally notify me (I don't care about that, but the DRN does). There is a discussion on talk, why not present your arguments there? If you don't, the DRN will take a very dim view of your behaviour and think you are wasting its time.Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cookies?
Sandra, I'm sorry, but it isn't me who is accusing you of 'slander', it isn't me who is claiming consensus where none exists, it isn't me who leaves messages on other newbie editor's talk pages, about you, which are at least ill-advised, if not false. It isn't me who unilaterally decides to completely rewrite an article, knowing that the rewrite is almost certainly controversial, without thinking it just might be an idea to consult others who have worked on it. We aren't in a school playground where we can just 'kiss and make up', cookies are no substitute for competence and willingness to work with others and learn. Why don't you read what GC (who you say agrees with your edits), has put on the ANI. At the moment you are just wasting a lot of people's time, for reasons of your own. You're an adult, that's your choice. Pincrete (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * very aggressive message above, it seems Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit had nothing to do with either supporting or opposing you, it was the result of extended agreement on talk (you should try reading it sometime).Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Your case at dispute resolution has been filed, but has had a general close because you did not list other users/parties that were involved in the dispute, feel free to relist the case when you have listed and notified all parties involved, thank you.  RMS52  Talk to me  20:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) ok, but user friendly behaviour would be to keep it open

Disputed tag
Please read the instructions for how to use disputed. As it is, when you click on "See the relevant discussion on the talk page." it goes nowhere. I can't tell looking at the talk page where a dispute is taking place as there are many disputes taking place. -- Green  C  21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm removing the tag given the above closure. --  Green  C  21:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

DRN closure
DRN is not a forum for making judgments about disputes, it is only for the purpose of attempting to help editors involved in disputes come to consensus. When a primary participant in a dispute is unwilling to participate, then there is no possibility that consensus can be reached and the case is closed. In this case Pincrete has chosen not to participate, choosing instead to continue discussion at the article talk page, and discussion between other editors at DRN is futile. The same is true at all other moderated content dispute resolution forums at English Wikipedia such as Third Opinion and Formal Mediation: see for example prerequisites to mediation #5 and #6. The only avenue by which a disputant can ask for help where the others in the dispute must either participate or have their positions ignored is a request for comments. If you choose to file a RFC be sure to read all the instructions on that page first and note that most RFC's run for 30 days. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) (current DRN Coordinator)

Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Editing
Hi there. Thanks for updating the Great Ocean Road article. I noticed you only used a bare url as a reference and instead of naming it, you used the same one three times. Considering the number of edits you have made I think it is time you learned to reference correctly. Bare urls are insufficient because addresses change. Please give references a name so they can be used multiple times. This would be how it is done. Also your summary of "leak problems" was a poor summary. It gave me no indication of what your contribution actually was. I hope you can make an effort to consider my small requests, should you continue to edit here. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your instructions. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * May I remind you to please not use bare URLs as references? It's very troublesome to fill them in for you. Versus001 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought they were not illegal. The other way takes about 15 minutes to do. Why so difficult? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will have to refer you to what Shiftchange said, because that's why bare URLs are discouraged. And it doesn't take 15 minutes to do it. All you have to do is look at how all the other citations are being done and then copy that format for your own citations. That's how I did it. Versus001 (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to copy. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an easy-to-use, unobtrusive tool called ProveIt available from User:ProveIt GT, it works with most browsers, takes two minutes to install or remove (it's installed on your WP account, not your computer). I could never remember how to properly format a ref, and this saved me having to remember and works for web/book/journal etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

and 'Sandra ott', by an editor just passing through. The edit tool bar above the edit window includes a wp:Cite tool. You might have to activate it though your WP:Preferences first. It it's there, click on "Cite" to the right of "Help". This gives you a drop down menu to select an appropriate template from, then you can drag and drop, or type in data, from a source to fill in the reference.

An alternative is to use bare URLs, then use wp:reFill or similar tools to do most of the work for you. Possibly better for a draft, than a 'live' page though.

The problem with using bare URLs is that without even the title of a source, if the link gets broken, a common occurrence, it is much harder to find the source again. With an accurate title, book/journal/ newspaper name, page/volume/issue numbers, author, publisher, publication date, and an ISBN or similar, if applicable, it is usually a trivial matter. I have managed to find missing sources with just a correct title, so that should be a minimum. Hope this is of some help.

• The template below should link to everything you will ever want to know about the subject.220  of  Borg 12:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is/was
If so, then "was" is the correct tense. We're talking about the past, right? Then past tense is the most appropriate. Versus001 (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thalys etc.
Sandra, this is my fair warning to you: if you re-insert that material about the crew again, that material you seem to be obsessed with, and if you continue to insert trivial material that is of no clear value to the article, and if you continue edit warring in the article and obstructing discussions on the talk page, I will block you. This has gone on for long enough and has taken up way too much time already. The best thing you can do is to just leave the article alone; second-best is to propose edits on the talk page and accept the consensus that forms there. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See your talk page for way to resolve this. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please achieve consensus first on topics openly debated at Talk
Hi Sandra, You recently modified without consensus some article text which is actively under discussion on a Talk Page. I've addressed this at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack as it seemed more appropriate there, as several editors have been actively involved. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello Sandra opposed to terrorism, Right from the beginning of the choice of your user name to the article content you focus on, you appear to have a strongly held focus and point of view that impacts your editing. I would suggest leaving the entire topic of terrorism alone and get acquainted with Wikipedia's rules and processes while editing subjects for which you are not so passionate and which will be easier for you to edit from the dispassionate, neutral point of view which is required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope you are not TheRedPenWhoSUPPORTSTerrorism. No, my name is Wikipedia's fault. I tried several names when signing up but they were all rejected as too close to an existing name, even if they weren't. I was reading terrorism articles so I thought of my username, which was not rejected by Wikipedia. Please, assume good faith. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandra,
 * As a friendly tip, if you wish to change to another name, possibly shorter, there is definitely a way to do so, although I don't know what it is off the top of my head. I'm sure you could find another name that is shorter, if you wished to. I would enlist an administrator's aid (you can just type   in a section on your talk page explaining what it is you need help with, and an Admin or experienced user will come along and answer your question).  One word of advice: I wouldn't try to create a new login name by yourself, because having two different login names at once is considered a violation at WP, because it might be looked at as a way to game the system (read up on sock puppets, if interested).  But an admin will definitely help you, if you wish to change to a shorter, or just different, name.
 * As a side issue, if you intend to edit as a single purpose account (not forbidden, but read the excellent essay), having a username that is unrelated to your special area of interest is preferable. The WP:SPA essay has this to say:  If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama.  You are not required to have an unrelated username, as this essay has neither the force of policy, nor guideline, but it's sound advice all the same.  Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Brief vandalism at 2015 Thalys train attack
It's one thing to vent one's disagreement, or even frustration, on the talk page, but this sarcastic bit: "according to expert Wikipedia reporters," that you added to the 2015 Thalys train attack article page following some text regarding number of injured that you apparently disagree with, is just plain vandalism. To your credit, you self-reverted two minutes later. But I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, when I saw this snippet of your edit summary addressing the revert: "didn't know note was not hidden". Were you planning to leave the sarcastic bit in, otherwise? So, thanks, I guess, for the revert&mdash;but whatever were you thinking in the first place? It shows open contempt for your fellow editors. You've been cautioned several times before to assume good faith and to be civil, and I must warn you again. Please work to improve the article; work out disagreements on the talk page, and by no means let any of your personal feelings about editors bleed into the article itself, not even for two minutes. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It was four wounded
Let me redirect you to here for the discussion that concerned it. Versus001 (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing at 2015 Thalys train attack
Versus beat me to it, I also was going to refer you there regarding the number of wounded in the 2015 Thalys train attack.

More to the point, please do not unilaterally override a consensus already achieved on the Talk Page, such as the Talk thread in which you participated, concerning the number of wounded, while ignoring the reasons for it (nobody was "grazed", this was a mistranslation; please re-read the thread).

Your edits at 2015 Thalys train attack in connection with your comments on the Talk page show a pattern of lack of respect, even contempt, for other editors, and continual reverts of consensus achieved on Talk pages; as well as the imposition of your own point of view, where Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. WP:TALKDONTREVERT says, Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

Please take this to heart and stop editing unilaterally, respect fellow editors, achieve consensus on the talk page, and where you end up in the minority, accept the majority consensus gracefully, and carry on in another article, or another section. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please always use edit summaries with your changes, and use them in a transparent manner.

Do not hide the nature of your changes to the 2015 Thalys train attack article by entering no edit summary, or by choosing an edit summary that mentions other, innocuous changes in the same edit, but not the one edit which goes against previously reached consensus, or for which active Talk page discussions are underway, as you did here:
 * 1) (diff) - substituted "five" injured instead of "four", though this was decided already at Talk here, by using the misleading (partial) edit summary "math error corrected" to draw attention away from your overriding of consensus
 * 2) (diff) - in infobox, changed "injuries = 4" to "injuries = 5", and added "conductor (grazed)", though this was already disproved (same Talk link as above); no edit summary

Three more examples of misleading edit summaries used to hide edits or reverts contrary to Talk page consensus can be found at Talk:2015 Thalys train attack at the end of section removal of Fox quotation.

The page Help:Edit summary has useful information about how to write Edit summaries, including sections specifically devoted to how to use them during disputes. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not use nonsensical or irrelevant edit summaries, as you did here, likening four injuries in a French train attack with deaths on United Flight 93 on 9-11:

didn't know note was not hidden. Directly injured is not correct. Flight 93 on 9-11, only a few were directly injured by the hijackers, Most were indirect.
 * especially when you had raised the issue of Flight 93 on the Talk page earlier, and the irrelevance of the comparison had already been pointed out to you more than once. Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am HighInBC and I am an administrator here. Users are expected to work in a collaborative fashion on all articles, but in an article about a current news story that involves BLP this is especially important. Part of my job is to make sure these articles are not disrupted. Please work with others on the talk page to get consensus before making edits to the page, particularly if you think they may be objected to. HighInBC (was Chillum)  15:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See your talk page. Some others have taken out lots of info but hide messages within the edits so it looked like an addition, not a subtraction. Very tricky of them. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are really not making sense with this, Sandra. Can you please provide an example? Versus001 (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Really?
You're really going to tell an unrelated admin involved in a school shooting article completely unrelated to the train attack article and tell him how I've been harassing you and edit-warring with you in said train article? All because I've been edit-warring with an unrelated user about a topic unrelated to the train attack? And you say that by marking your sandbox as patrolled I am "snooping" around in your user page? I seriously, honestly don't know what that does and just decided to do it on a whim (I've patrolled other pages before and it didn't do anything as far as I've known), and besides, you haven't done anything on that sandbox at all! And even if you did, I know it's against the rules to edit another user's sandbox without his/her permission, so really, what would I have done? You would've reported me anyway.

You never fail to surprise me, really. And you say me and the others have been harassing you out of an agenda. Versus001 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. HighInBC 15:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried talking it out with you, I gave you a clear warning. However you continue to engage in bad faith accusations against other users. It is you who is following around people's edits and constantly making accusations against them. In a mere 500 edits you have upset a half dozen editors and accused most of them of various misdeeds.


 * This block is for 2 weeks. If you continue this combative attitude when you get back the next block will be indefinite. We simply cannot have a productive collaborative project with people who insist on making everything into a battle. I fully expect you to post on ANI about how I am an abusive admin and acting unfair, as always I am open to the scrutiny of the community. HighInBC 15:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've been watching but uninvolved in all of this - I think you've acted with extreme civility and in the best interests of the project. samtar (msg) 15:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * During this time I think that it'd be a good idea to go over some of the basic guidelines at WP:CIVILITY, WP:TRAINING, and WP:EDITWAR. It is never a good idea to do things like call someone "TheRedPenWhoSUPPORTSTerrorism" for asking you to change your username or to engage in battleground behavior like you did here. Two wrongs do not make a right and it looks like HighInBC blocked you for more than just the interactions with Versus001. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Sandra, welcome back. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Umpqua Community College shooting, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. 15:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed! You really need to read about Overlinking and underlinking. -- &#123;&#123;u&#124; BullRangifer &#125;&#125; { Talk } 19:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , Editor 'Sandra opposed to terrorism' had just returned from a two week block. Sandra tried to get the block lifted early and promised to behave. Sigh.  19:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced they are mature enough to edit here. Check this edit. This is a very public place. -- &#123;&#123;u&#124; BullRangifer &#125;&#125; { Talk } 19:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good grief,, I'm going to open an alternate account called 'Checkingfax goes shopping on Sandra's dime'. Cheers!  19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That info needs to be scrubbed completely, because it's still available in the history. -- -- &#123;&#123;u&#124; BullRangifer &#125;&#125; { Talk } 19:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the revision and I am requesting it be deleted by oversight. I am trying to figure out the best response to this. HighInBC 20:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ability to post on Wikipedia removed
You just posted your credit card info for all to see. I have deleted the post and had it oversighted so it cannot be seen. I have blocked this account and removed talk page access to prevent you from posting information that may cause harm to you. You can make a request to WP:UTRS asking to be unblocked. You need to explain an understanding that Wikipedia is public and not the place for private information.

I suggest you call your credit card companies and tell them that your numbers have been compromised. HighInBC 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 Thalys train attack
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)