User talk:WorldFacts

Vandalism
I'd just like to say I agree with you about your concern of user Jay, who thinks he can delete what he wants when he wants. Poor and sometimes, no reasons are even used to substantiate these actions. I highly urge you to go to the link and add a comment there about the vandalism. Other people have also shared concerns in the past, but have been delleted off his page. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page#Sock_Puppeting (also see history page on the link)

Go through his history page when you have time, and see for yourself.

143.53.6.39 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP
Please have a very careful read of our policy regarding living people. Claiming in an edit that 'Living Person X is a charlatan', as you did here is a violation of that policy, that puts the project in danger of a libel lawsuit, and yourself in danger of having your editing privileges revoked. Please don't do this again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you for your note at my talk page. You have a reply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty
You are also getting confused again. Fringe is Justin and Jayjg. I have explained their position as I understand it, but it is not a position I really espouse. I favour inclusion, as Ken does, but only once the edit is of a good quality and the source is appropiate, both of which we are lacking. One of those I can recitfy with editing, the other would involve more work looking for a source. I offered to do this and yet after I did offer instead I see what amounts to a personal attack launched claiming everyone is out to censor you and The Truth. Consider, was that /really/ the best way to move towards a consensus? I was willing to go and find the source you couldn't. As it is, the two edits are pretty bad. You are getting closer, in some ways, to an acceptable edit. To the point where I did have to sit there and think before reverting, but the second bit is especially in need of work (About the NSA one). Moorer I think needs re-wording and it does need that third party source. I am still willing to look for that source among the Journals etc I have access to. However, that would only be my concerns addressed. You do have to realise that while I do understand you genuinely believe this is fine as is, you have to accept that for good faith reasons there are objections. This is a conspiracy theory, care has to be taken. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The source is something I'm trying to work on, and yes, it is very difficult to find anything (It seems the only person writing about the report at all is the Admiral himself). This does proove somewhat of a problem, as then we are only left with, at best, the report itself. Which would mean getting a copy from a reliable site (I.e. one where the source can be trusted to be a faithful reproduction of the source) and then establishing what, if anything, we can cite from a report. I can understand frustrations arising from wiki's belief in verifiability over truth, I have fallen afoul of it sometimes, but the substance of an edit is immaterial almost if the source cannot be found. So, that said, if a consensus is to be reached, I'd suggest the quality of the edit is put aside until an agreement is reached upon sourcing (Quality is edit is easily fixed by a gradual editing process). As it is, I should be able to get the searching done tommorrow/sunday (depending on how essay writing goes) and posted up on the talk page. I can't promise the resources will turn up anything, as I have indicated my searches are currently nill, but I am going to try and widen the net a bit more and look under the rocks rather than just at the mountains, as they say. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It must be pretty obvious that article USS Liberty has been overtaken by POV-pushing. Rather than looking at one problem at a time, can we list the most serious? Here are three that I can see:
 * 1) The 60 uncited statements in the article.
 * 2) The removal of Boston's affadavit placed in the Congressional record.
 * 3) The removal of the Moorer report - this version may be the one that that has been maximally modified to meet objections.
 * There are a number of other serious concerns - eg a respected admin seems convinced that policy is to include the names of the dead. It shouldn't be so difficult to re-insert them, over this non-policy revert.
 * I detect that some editors have trouble cooperating with "PalestineRemembered", even though it's an SPA to policy. My e-mail is engaged, if you think it would improve the ambience I can change. PRtalk 09:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Moorer
As you've obviously ignored the discussion on the talk page, let me just point out that Narson inserted an edit that put Moorer into the article two weeks ago. And porn magazines are not what I would generally class as a reliable source for world affairs. Justin talk 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As usual, you don't address the relevant facts:
 * The Moorer Commission was the only Indepedent report done in the last 40 years. With it's '3 equal sign' category, this is made clear in the entry. Confining it to the "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions" when it is the only Independent report done on the event in 40 years is clearly inappropriate, hence my first UNDO.
 * Nothing in Narson's entries discusses the number of Officials in government described and referenced in my entry who claim the attack was intentional.
 * There are other conclustions in the Moorer Report which are not discussed anywhere on this page.
 * Paul Craig Roberts is the author, not Hustler Magazine. His credentials, on par with those of the members of the commission, speak for themselves. As has already been identified, thanks to the Israel Lobby, mention of anything Negative towards Israel tends to be relegated to less reputable Print and Video Media, despite the credentials of the author or authors involved. In fact, the Israel Lobby actually tries to prove it's non-existence by literally proving it's existence.
 * If past history is any indicator, I suspect this is not the last we will have heard of this entry. Time will tell I suppose.WorldFacts (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:UNDUE the issue has appropriate coverage. Justin talk 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained this to you time and time again, the Moorer report is a fringe issue it is not widely reported in open literature. You struggle to find any mention of it anywhere.  The major edit you have repeatedly tried to shoe horn into the article gives undue significance to a fringe issue.  The Moorer report is addressed in the article, its findings are reported and its given due weight according to its significance in the open literature.  As a side issue, using Hard Core pornography as a reference source struck me as failing WP:RS and after raising the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard, the general comment was that the author was somewhat unreliable.  I will ignore the comments about the "Israel Lobby".  Justin talk 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at USS Liberty incident
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

''You should be aware that the Moorer material has been heavily discussed on the Talk page. If you are not prepared to enter that discussion and try to persuade the others, attempting to get your way by simple reverting will probably lead to sanctions.'' EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The way you people are treating Worldfacts is disgusting ! Simply disgusting.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident
I note that the first thing you did on your return was to edit war over Moorer once again. I've started a threat on WP:AN/I here. I'm suggesting the article is placed on a 1RR probation. Justin talk 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are being warned WF. In case you are interested in seeing a report of war crimes committed against the United Stated by Israel check this out. You may find it of interest.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment
You'll find that few things are more reliably indicative of POV-pushing than to describe the removal of material which is subject to good-faith disagreement as "censorship". You will find that if you continue in that vein, you will likely end up blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A complaint about your editing has been filed
Hello WorldFacts. I have opened a complaint about your editing of USS Liberty incident at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Final Chance
Continuing to add this paragraph to the USS Liberty article without consensus on the talk page for you to do this is now disrupting the editing of the article. If you do this again without first obtaining a clear consensus then I will block you. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of this attempt at Consensus is not clear or in appropriate? How, precisely, can you determine that my finding that 7 editors are in favor of my entry, whereas 4 are opposed is NOT a satisfactory attempt to find consensus? How, exactly, do you determine that I am adding an entry without consensus when I and 6 other editors are in the majority? Note that answering these questions doesn't actually express an opinion on the article.WorldFacts (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org] and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

And just to clarify, there is no way PR could be described as a non-involved editor. Justin talk 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I gathered that from "I am an involved editor". John Reaves 11:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have a misunderstanding, purely down to my misreading of the unblock request, to clarify User:PalestineRemembered acknowledged himself as an involved editor. I simply misread the unblock request.  My mistake, I aplogise and I've struck through my comments. Justin talk 12:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

May I further bring it to people's attention that "Litigation" is the Wikipedia term for all ARBCOM action eg Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-24/Arbitration report "The Wikipedia Signpost - The Report on Lengthy Litigation By seresin, 24 January, 2009 ... The Arbitration Committee closed no cases this week, and opened one, leaving a total of five cases open." It might be reasonable to suggest this is the only action that WorldFacts was, or could have been, considering. PRtalk 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, while it is kind of you to share your expertise at getting out of NLT blocks, PR, perhaps better continued at the ANI thread? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PalestineRemembered, there is no need for you to editing this page or making unblock requests for people other than yourself. John Reaves 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)