User talk:Southofwatford

/rewrite

/Explosives Controversy Rewrite

Hi, Southofwatford. I have to say that I admire your coolness in dealing with these nutjobs. A question: Why are the other users supporting them that much? Don't they stand out to them as a bunch of conspiracy theory weirdos and extremsits?

I think without having familiarity with the sources they use, its difficult for people to make that kind of judgement. Coolness? I don't know, I just want to see Wikipedia have a credible article on this subject - at the moment it doesn't have that. --Southofwatford 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hola. Te pido disculpas por lo que dije sobre ti. El que yo me sintise atacado personalmente no era motivo para atacarte a ti, ni siquiera en la forma indirecta en lo que lo hice.

Te propongo que borremos todos los ataques personales y que empecemos de nuevo.

Sé que el asunto que tratamos es muy polémico y trágico, y entiendo que todos a veces digamos cosas de las que luego nos arrepintamos.

Un saludo. Randroide 12:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hola. Pongo en tu conocimiento que la "protección" del artículo sobre los atentados de Madrid era falsa. Si se vuelve a poner por un usuario anónimo o por un no-administrador, podemos y debemos quitarla sin más. Un saludo Randroide 11:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Randroide 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Hola, Southofwatford. A ver si en castellano nos entendemos mejor. Te voy a hacer unas preguntas porque me paece que no acabo de entenderte.

Contesta meditando mucho lo que escribes, por favor. Es importante que nos comuniquemos correctamente:

1.¿Aceptas en general a "EL Mundo" como una fuente válida (quizás con algunas excepciones sobre las que te pregunto más adelante) para el artículo sobre los atentados del 11-M en Madrid?.

2. En caso afirmativo en la pregunta 1: ¿Estas en desacuerdo SÓLO con mi propuesta de inclusión de ALGUNOS artículos de "El Mundo"

3. En caso afirmativo en la pregunta 2: ¿Con cuáles estas en desacuerdo y porqué razones?.

4. ¿Se extienden tus objeciones a noticias publicadas en "La Razón" y "The Guardian"?.

Muchas gracias por tu atención.

Randroide 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Vale. Gracias por tu pronta respuesta.

3. En caso afirmativo en la pregunta 2: ¿Con cuáles estas en desacuerdo y porqué razones?.


 * Cuando tienen información claramente incorrecta, o cuando tienen titulares que no corresponden con el contenido, o cuando tienen afirmaciones sin evidencia.


 * ¿Puedes por favor ponerme ejemplos de lo que consideras "información claramente incorrecta"?. Aquel ejemplo de edición de respuestas en la Comisión del 11-M NO me parece un ejemplo de esto.


 * ¿Puedes darme ejemplos de titulares que no corresponden con el contenido y de ''afirmaciones sin evidencia

'' 4. ¿Se extienden tus objeciones a noticias publicadas en "La Razón" y "The Guardian"?.

Si, también - aunque hay que distinguir entre artículos donde la información no estaba disponible en el momento (en los días despues de los atentados) y los que si han tenido acceso a datos correctos.

¿Aceptas los mismos stándares para todos los periódicos que se citen en le artículo?.

Un saludo y hasta mañana. Ahora creo que empezamos a entendernos.Randroide 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

11-M
Hi Southofwatford,

Firstly I want to apologize for my dificulties for keeping cool and follow the procedures. Randroide put me in the PAIN page so I was forced to react. Now has been accusing me in Durova page so I defended. Yesterday I had with Durova the next exchange : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#11-M I do not want to take any more iniciative without you consent. I fact, you seem to be a balanced person with patience so perhaps is better if you manage the RFC thing. For me, Wikipedia is not only the english wikipedia but the world class wikipedia so it should be not so dificult to get rid of El Mundo as a source since is a local Spanish newspaper saying extravangant and unsupported things that are not reflected in any world class media. However I let you the decision of how to proceed. I think we can show who is Pedro J but I do not know if showing who is him and why is doing all this would be enough. --Igor21 12:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Hi,Randroide is editing articles about cars compulsively to be able of accusing me of working only in 11-M. Should we wait or should we proceed with RFC?. --Igor21 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Randroide
Hola, Southofwatford. Buenas noches.

A ver, que igual no acabo de entenderte. ¿Cuando dices que te retiras del RfC, tu motivo es que que no acepte esta propuesta tuya?:

Proposed topics:


 * 1). Treatment of conspiracy theories, ask for opinions on how they should be handled - whether the approach we have tried of separating hem into a controversies article is a valid approach. Definition of what is or is not a conspiracy theory


 * 2). Treatment of sources - The El Mundo issues, on what grounds might it be acceptable to reject sources, how do we treat sources that are involved themselves in developments on what they are reporting i.e. where the source forms part of the story


 * 3). How to describe the perpertrators in the main article

¿O tu motivo es más bien que yo prefiera un estilo de presentación RfC más "confrontacional" que el que puedas preferir tú?.

Un saludo.Randroide 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC statement
Randroide 11:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC) This is my RfC brief, neutral statement of the issue, i.e. your previous statement with a modification.


 * We invite comment from other Wikipedia editors on a series of issues which are holding up editing of the article on the 11th March 2004 Madrid train bombings. These issues have all been discussed at length on the article Talk page, to avoid confusing different topics we will deal with them in separate RFC’s. One of the main issues has been how to deal with “alternative explanations” or “conspiracy theories” new newspaper articles about those events presenting new points of view. An attempt has been made to separate the discussion of such theories into a new “Controversies” article, but this process has run into problems because the editors involved have not been able to agree on the line of separation between a straightforward neutral account of events, and the new controversies article. Below are position statements from the different editors involved in this discussion – we welcome all contributions and suggestions on how to handle this issue.


 * "Alternative explanations" is misleading: My sources do not point to "alternative explanations", only to allegued shortcomings and impossibilities in the current explanation.
 * "Conspiracy theories" is POV.

Disputes
Thank you for your posting on my talk page. I am in no way "censoring" anyone when I point out that they should follow Wikipedia procedures. In fact, I posted a note on Igor21's page about how he might want to handle the situation, constructively.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to fully investigate all sides of a situation when I chose to ask an editor to change his/her behavior, but unfortunately that is the case. I've often seen editors become incivil and resort to personal attacks when faced with clearly disruptive editors, and while I sympathize (and have fallen prey to the temptation myself on more than one or occasion), the reality is that incivility and personal attacks generally don't help. In short, I have no interest in being a referee regarding the content of the article; I'm simply asking everyone to follow the rules despite any frustrations.

If there are matters other than content disputes where you believe that Randroide's behavior has violated rules such as WP:CIVIL, please let me know. John Broughton  | ♫ 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for misreading "censure" as "censor". Yes, that was a reprimand, and I stand by it.  And I stand by my request that if you know of specific violations by Randroide that require something less than a RfC or mediation process to untangle, I'll be happy to do censuring there as well.


 * You seem to believe, when you say if Randroide had not acted to destroy the agreement on seeking a consensual solution then Igor21's intervention would never have happened that one wrong justifies another. I disagree.


 * And no, I'm not telling you what Randroide is or isn't entitled to. I'm simply saying that there are right and wrong ways to deal with disputes, and I felt that Igor21's approach was incorrect.  And not that big a deal, really. So, other than your bringing any specific instances of violations by Randroide to my attention, may I suggest that we drop this?  John Broughton  |  ♫ 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I've not made my role (as I see it) clear. I don't get involved in complex situations - that's what RfCs and mediation and arbitration are for, with people who have volunteered to do that.  Rather, I've decided to handle a larger number of less complex matters, primarily involving personal attacks, because WP:PAIN is defunct and WP:AN/I is overwhelmed and lesser problems posted there are (reportedly) generally ignored.


 * In short, the specific example you've given me - your complaint against Randroide, of his breaking an agreement - isn't something that falls into the area that I've defined as what I want to focus on. I apologize for not being able to help.  John Broughton  |  ♫ 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion of sources, addition of unsourced text and destruction of links
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 

I suggest you to point to the specific diffs you disagree with, Southofwhatford. I accept even the reversal of the diff you disagree with while we talk about the issue. But one diff at a time, please.

If the perpetrators text and the beginning of the article is such a problem, we can move the whole section to the "Responsibility" section. The whole section. "Responsibility" is a complex issue, that is very difficult to del with properly in a brief introduction.

A "Nuclear Option" massive reversal (as the one linked above) is really a bad, bad, idea: You are destroying not only my work, but also other user´s last month work. Randroide 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest you to take a look at this: Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Please correct your remark about me. AFAIK it is false
Randroide 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Hello, Southofwatford.

You wrote about me:


 * You have rejected consensus, you have rejected the mediation process - that is your free choice but it does not entitle you to make unilateral changes to a disputed article...[]...Given Randroide's rejection of mediation I feel that the only way forward now is for this article to be submitted for arbitration (bold added by me)

I think that these remarks you made about me are false, and that writing those lines you are damaging my reputation in Wikipedia.

AFAIK you rejected the RfC.

In fact, I asked you and other users to come back to the RfC.

I can not remember me "rejecting" (as you said) the RfC.
 * Could you please produce the diff where I said that?. If you can produce that diff, I beg your pardon and I´ll shut up about this issue.

... If you can not...


 * Could you please erase those false remarks you wrote about me rejecting the RfC?.

Thank you for your attention.

Goma-2
Yes, you are right. You were simply "defending" your position.

Sorry for the inconvenience: I thought you were te one introducing the non-functional link. I deleted my warnings: I placed them incorrectly.

I reverted to yesterday´s version. Anyway: If sourced information is introduced by third parties, we would have to breach the subject, because we can nor delete sourced (albeit, IMO, premature, this is nor Wikinews) information.

I disagree with you 100% on other claims you made in your posts, but that´s unimportant now.

I beg you pardon for my confussion.

Randroide 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Titadine
The Titadine article is a different bird, Southofwatford: I restored deleted sourced data. The data deleted in the Goma-2 article was unsourced. That´s the big difference. Randroide 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you to have our conversation there, at Talk:Titadine Randroide 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

March 11 article RfC/RfM
Hi there. Are we going for a RfC or a RfM? I've been (indirectly) involved in a RfC recently, and sincerely, I don't think that's gonna be much help here. Editors show their POV and others either support their versions or not, but as far as I know it does not entitle the version with more support with any kind of privileges. That said, in the last few days there have been a lot of documentaries related to the March 11 attack and the so-called 'conspiracy theories'. I've jotted down a few things I believe may be helpful for the case, in order to present a clear and ordered narrative, especially about the 'conspiracy theories':


 * The 'mochila' issue: a policeman says he does not recognise it as the one he guarded. El Mundo says that in that case the whole instruction of the case should be rewritten, and even Rajoy, based on this info, asks for further investigations. It is later revealed (by El Pais) that the judge showed the policeman a replica of the backpack.


 * The 'Kangoo' issue: El Mundo says that ETA-detainees also drove a Kangoo like the one the March 11 terrorists did. (?) That's the connection they made so far.


 * The 'Mondragon' issue: Supposedly a card with the basque Mondragon group was found in the car. Zaplana, based in El Mundo, says that that card _that he has seen_ must be investigated. It is later revealed (among other sources, by El Pais), that it was in fact a cd by the Orquesta Mondragón.


 * The 'peritos' issue: A report by 3 peritos says that boric acid was found everywhere. As that was as useful as saying there is salt in the sea, they were told by the superior to remake the report. They refused and went to El Mundo. Judge Garzon 'imputes' them, and Losantos (from COPE), El Mundo (in their front page) and Manos Libres acusse him of 'prevaricación', this last ones placing a 'querella' against him that the National Audience later archives.


 * ETA detainees at the 11-M trial: the 3 ETA detainees that are going to be present at the trial were in prison the day of the attacks.


 * Goma 2 issue: El Mndo says that Goma 2 and Dinitrotulueno (or however that's spelled, DNT for short) are different, and so the instruction (or sumario) is wrong and has to be redone again. ABC says that the instruction has been adequate, and that the Goma 2 was contaminated during its fabrication process.


 * Confidents issue: Rafa Zouhier says he warned about the Goma 2 sale. The Comercio de Gijón states that he only worked for the U.C.O ( a brach of the Guardia Civil it seems). El Mundo doubts that a person under surveillance like him could plan an attck.


 * In the Sumario, the fiscal Olga Sánchez denies ETA connection.


 * La Razón says that with the info provided 'it is clear it was an al-Qaeda attack'. They say the 'conspiracy theory' is dead, and to forget certain 'temptations', and not use the issue as a weapon.


 * El Mundo (Pedro J, in fact) talks about an order in the 'fuerzas del estado' to ignore any ETA connections that come up during the investigation.


 * Antena 3 makes reference to all this calling it a 'conspiracy theory'. So does Cuatro. And La Primera.


 * New York Times, Washington Post and UK media make no reference at all to ETA the day the 11-M trial begins.


 * And last (for now, sorry about the extension), to provide a context, the victims association of March 11 do not support at all the conspiracy theories or the Peones Negros that go on demonstrations. the AVT does.

I hope that helps. Sorry about the lenght. :-) I wanted you to have this info because it's highly possible I won't be available for the RfC or RfM. Cheers! Raystorm 11:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your posting of unsourced claims
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Randroide 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Randroide 13:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(pasted from my talk page) If you continue adding unsourced claims, an administrator will tell you who´s right. Randroide 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Randroide 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(pasted from my talk page) You restored unsourced material. You added that material. Read the policies, please, and please stop this behaviour because the next step is not me. Randroide 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hi there. It seems the case is going to be rejected as premature. No surprise there, we did not follow usual procedure and try other alternatives first (I think the arbitrators saw the list I made on the March 11 talk page of procedures that we had not attempted yet before RfA). Better to get ready for mediation, I guess. Cheers Raystorm 21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.


 * On POV, I will happily accept lectures on the subject from those who observe it themselves, Randroide does not even get close to membership of that group

Randroide 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apply the rules to yourself before attempting to apply them to others - thats the message. Southofwatford 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Randroide 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Apply the rules to yourself before attempting to apply them to others - thats the message. Southofwatford 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Using talk page as a forum
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Randroide 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This boring serial abuse of Wikipedia templates as a means of responding to anything and everything you don't like will make no difference to anything Randroide. I was making a comment on a recent addition to the article - I do not require your approval to do such a thing. Southofwatford 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Randroide 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above on serial abuse of Wikipedia templates. They are not intended to be used simply because you do not like something someone has said on a talk page. I wish you would read at least some of the policies and guideline you constantly cite to other users. Yesterday you gave me an entirely misplaced and inappropriate lecture on content forking and then went off and drove a big hole in the Wikipedia policy on the very same subject Southofwatford 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This user pulled the same stunt on my talk page. If there is a repetition of this kind of behavior, I am going to seek sanctions under WP:POINT. There may already be a basis for a block if there has already been previous instances of misuse of templates. --Mantanmoreland 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I have called for an RFC on 11-M--Igor21 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have moved the section to your userspace. You can access it here or by typing User:Southofwatford/rewrite. Thanks and good luck!!  D u s t i complain/compliment 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Hope to have a reasonable version ready to look at tomorrow. Southofwatford (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit you did...


...please look for and add those "very easy fo find independent sources" to preserve this particular wording you prefer.

I think that two weeks is a reasonable ("very easy") span of time to complete that task. Thank you for your attention. Enjoy your holidays, Southofwatford! :-)


 * I am sorry, Southofwatford: I failed to see the source you added. Yes: Your edit was good. Sorry for the inconvenience Randroide (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)