Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:38, 30 November 2011

Sign your posts!

Hey. In the future, whenever you add a post to a talk page, please sign your post. Read WP:SIGNATURE for more on this, but basically, all you have to do is add four tildes (~~~~) after the comment. There's also a button in the toolbar above the edit box that will insert this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Identity check

Hiya, I hope you don't mind my asking, but are you also User:Kazvorpal? --Elonka 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, I am not. --The Devil's Advocate 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, just checking.  :) BTW, I'm in St. Louis too, let me know if you'd ever like to get together for coffee or something.  :) Do you use IMs? --Elonka 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh I'm in Missouri, but not St. Louis, I live about an hour and a half away.

Deletion of material from Talk:Moneybomb

It is not acceptable to remove material from an article's talk page, except in an extremely limited set of circumstances. Your deletions constituted a violation of our norms of civility. Please refrain from such actions in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

I undeleted it. However, if the POV is not corrected it will end up at AFD again. --Coredesat 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Moneybomb. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Elonka 07:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

moneybomb criticism section

I think you are wrong. The section may need some tweeking. But it brings to light the effectiveness of the concept/idea/mediation of a moneybomb. (The media coverage) As well their was only one direct recreance to Paul. If there is a section you object to like the polls remove it and leave the section. --So what you are effectively saying it is OK to criticize the supporters for choosing a date for a moneybomb but not the media coverage or the lack their off. What kind of bias is that? The point is fundamental to the origins of moneybombs to buy publicity. The section could also show the huge gap between the internet publicity and mainstreem media. --Duchamps comb (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)duchamps_comb

OK I am not arguing about the section I put together not being all quotes it was. So maybe some of you smart(er) folks than me can come up with something. My belief is the section is Needed, it does not have to be what I put in there. As well the one recreance you mention from the New Your Times said" The revolution, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." the revolution (Ron Paul supporters) So I changed it to, "The money bomb, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." to keep bias down. Some of my refrences would work for someone, NY times, Washington Post, Los Angelas Times--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 wars of independence

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 wars of independence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2008 wars of independence. Sandstein (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent

An article that you have been involved in editing, Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence. Thank you. Sandstein (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 wars of independence

An editor has nominated 2008 wars of independence, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Guy, if you had actual reliable sources, you should have actually cited them: citations from The International Journal of Because-I-Said-So don't count, and it was these unfulfilled promises of reliable sources Real Soon Now that prompted the second AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reality check #1: "look it up yourself" is NOT an actual reference. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Except one of these sources mentions him winning a Telly Award which goes directly to his notability

Reality check #2: not even close. He could proclaim anything he pleases about his notability in a self-published source, which means it's not a verifiable statement -- pretty much the entire point of excluding them as indicators of notability. Did you know I'm an Emmy Award winner? Let me go create a Blogspot blog attesting to that, and I'll be getting my own article soon. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll

If you weren't so naive you'd know why it was removed, see the talk page for gods sakes. Rodrigue (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll

As I said in other comments, the legitimate reason is that this was not a land-line phone poll, as traditionally conducted, like most if not all other polls on the page.

The link says the methodology was from American Consumer Opinion , which does online-paid surveys.reason enough I think. Rodrigue (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Caring

So do you want a copy of the article so you can improve it? --David Fuchs 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your many contributions to the hotly-disputed Kosovo issues. Your last change for the intro to "Kosovo", obviously, is far more neutral than the previous version. Thanks.Gkmx (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

North American Union

Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your deletion of text and citations from the North American Union article. While I recognize and sympathize the fact that you do not feel the article is very accurate, Misplaced Pages's core content policy Verifiability is very clear that "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." As such, it is entirely appropriate that the article reflect the fact that virtually all reliable, third-party, published sources view "the NAU threat" as being a conspiracy theory or urban legend (as evidenced in articles such as "The amero conspiracy" in the International Herald Tribune, "Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears" in The Seattle Times, "Highway to Hell?" in Newsweek, and "Diverted by jelly-beans" in The Economist). As much as I appreciate your efforts to improve this article (which I genuinely feel you have done), deleting properly sourced content that is cited to a reliable source is, at best, highly irregular and really looks like POV-pushing. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Section

what your implying isn't even true, but don't know where your going with it.Anyway, unless you think its wrong I'm just going to remove the section, don't see the point. Rodrigue (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Section

I suppose now your calling me a racist??.If anything the opposite of what your saying is true,but the only polls that were seemingly outlier showed him ahead, which is the ones I pointed out.Oh, and was hillary also not born within the contigious US?., it questions his candidacy the same way john mccain was born in panama.

But I suppose your already made up about your judjement of me, so nevermind. Rodrigue (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't even support Hillary anyway, but I guess I see where your coming from with your POV theories.Though your views seem obvious. Rodrigue (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia is irrelevant

Anyways dude, who cares about Serbia, they are irrelevant. Kosovo is independent, and neither you nor Serbia will change it. Bosniak (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Devils A, I hope you will get over it, before commiting suicide, so dear Devils A., get help, please, I am really worried about you. --Tubesship (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Assassination of Raul Reyes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Assassination of Raul Reyes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Assassination of Raul Reyes. bd_ (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Page Source

I've userfied it to one of my subpages. Enjoy! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be interested..

...in this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's OR?

Also not all are pro-Serb - I'm also working on the UN Charter's support of self-determination, but since you did this, I'm no longer sure where/how to add it..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I think a lot of data is missing - including the very crucial UNSCR 1160 and the Contact Group statements. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention. Secession of indeed is legally hampered, so even the very best neutral whole article on the question, would be pro-Serbian; that has little to do with myself as a person.

Well then what should I do? End my quest (see the second sentence in my previous post)? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Serbian reaction...

Greets. Relplied on my talk page for others' sake (to keep the info in one place). --Mareklug 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I was naive

I was actually retarded to be blunt. I thought all these editors agreed with my idea to merge to achieve NPOV not their twisted and biased POV. What can we do now? Beam (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Assembly of Kosovo

Hm, turned out you were right. The SRS, SPS, DSS, G17+ and DS political leaders in Kosovo made an agreement and scheduled for 15 June 2008.

The Assembly of the Serbian People of Kosovo and Metohija shall have 45 Deputies. 43 are elected by municipal parliaments, while the remaining two are reserved one for Romani and the other for the Slavic Muslim minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 Georgia-Russia crisis

I have nominated the above article for deletion. Feel free to add your comments about the article here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

userbox relocation

Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids

Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:)

Its amazing how you are updated with Georgian-Russian tensions. :) Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk interruptions

While I recognize that your many interspersed replies to Talk:North American Union were an attempt to keep the discussion focused, WP:TALK states that these sorts of interruptions should generally be avoided. If you feel that you absolutely must insert your own comments into others' replies, please use the {{interrupted}} template before your message so that other reads are able to clearly understand who authored which comment. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetian War 2008 - Map

Hi, I've changed the map after your feedback. Maybe you could have a look on it and tell me whether it's better now or not? Thanks -- DanteRay (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New Cold War

Aloha,

I hope all is well. I've been keeping an eye on New Cold War and fear that it will be deleted. As such, I copied the original onto my user page. Please feel free to contribute to it, as I find it a rather interesting subject. Thanks, and

Best Regards,

Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm interested in stopping these deletions, I really don't find them constructive. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I may have been less than completely clear in my closure. While I used the words no consensus I did not mean that was the result of the debate. What I mean is that the debate did not have a consensus to change the status quo. I see the the debate ended largely endorsing the deletion. All debates on wikipedia, whether deletion, undeletion, RfA and so on use consensus to change something...without consensus we don't enact the requested change. Perhaps I was not expansive enough in my closure - I did feel that enough words had been expended by all involved parties.

What I see from both the debate and the preceeding AfD is a consensus, as based mostly in the original research policy, that the article should be deleted. After reading your message I've read the deleted article and see that it is is a combination of original research, a synthesis of ideas and an overused journalistic cliché. The term is widely used, seemingly as a snappy catchphrase, but there is no consensus anywhere on exactly what it means. It has been used by authors since the 1970s to mean many different things. Mostly it seems to reflect the same journalistic laziness that has resulted in "Mother of all xxxxxx" being abused to describe everything large for the last 20 years. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you or Coren properly evaluted the substance of the article. While the term was used during the Cold War that was more to describe a new phase in that conflict or another aspect of it. As such the article had properly noted it had another use for a period in the Cold War and directed readers to that article. Any claim the older usage of the term impacts the article itself is illegitimate. Also original research only comes into play when the subject itself is a product of original research. However, many articles and books discuss it as a concept and idea with a clear definition. The particular areas touched on in the article are all tied together in several articles on the subject, which I pointed out, so while the article itself may have used synthesis, the subject itself was not. This argument however, is simply unaddressed in both the decision to delete and your decision. You haven't given a good reason to dismiss this argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have spent an instructive few hours today at a library and on the internet reading up on the topic - I have read and reread the article, many news articles and parts of at least 10 books with the subject prominent in their title or subject matter. What is patently clear to me now is that there is no agreement in the wider world of what a "New Cold War" is. I can see it variously used

• to describe any conflict between Russia and anyone
• describing the relationship between the USA and China re: Tibet
• variously used in reference to the Strategic missile treaty dealings between the USA and USSR during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
• Used often to describe other US/Russian tensions post Jimmy Carter.
• Used as a catchphrase (not a proper noun) describing "a renewed struggle for influence between Washington and Moscow" over the politics and control thereof of the former parts of the USSR in the recent book by Mark MacKinnon
• Used to highlight certain assertions as part of a portrait of Putin's "ruling class"'s mindset in the recent Edward Lucas book.
• Used in a book by Edward Crankshaw in 1970 for one use (possibly regarding USSR and China) and by Noam Chomsky much later for another.

As you can see, and I could read on and find many more definitions, there is no consistency except that the term primarily involves either Russia, the USA or both. The article pulled together various, recent, news articles and from this asserted a definition and structure that my investigations show me are original synthesis. While some sources mirror what was in the article, many more do not and there is nothing clear on which to have an article. While there is no consensus definition, the article will fall into the mire of not being ever able to be neutral by having to selectively chose from the available sources. At the deletion review I judged that the consensus decision was for it to remain deleted as original research. My feeling now, after some research, is that the subject is bereft of clear definition and as such, and as the article was framed, will fail to have a neutral point of view. If someone can find that, on balance, reliable sources over time say "The New Cold War is xxxxx" a neutral article may be possible. As it stands the reliable sources say "The New Cold War is <issue of the day involving Russia/USA/China/Whoever>" - not a single thing to write an article that is not a synthesis on. You would need an entire article to simply define the term by noting all of the varied uses of it - rather than the latest effort to focus on Georgia alone. I do note also that the term has been used as far back as the 1950s and perhaps we are beset here with recentism. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was hastily deleted after a consensus for merge was opened. It amounts to nothing short of censorship and individuals following their own agenda. The article was poor, but should have been merged and improved, not deleted. I think the contributors of those articles deserved more than what can only be described as a partisan and unfair deletion of their articles. This matter was grossly mismanaged and, while I was not necessarily against deleting the article, I believe that the users should have at least been given a moratorium for improvement of Neo/New Cold War articles. However, when two particular users saw that this might occur through a merge, they ensured it could not go forward. What you saw were a series of people who had nothing to do with the articles appear, as if by magic, to support two users who, in my opinion, acted dubiously. Either way, the article will be back. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. :) Mathmo 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a little update: A nice reference to the "| New Iron Curtain" 62.72.110.11 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

A quick review of this talk page has revealed that the following users want the multi-coloured map to be removed, and replaced either with a map that shows only states that have recognised, or with nothing: Bazonka, Tocino, Tone, Hapsala, LokiiT, 195.98.173.10, Pocopocopocopoco, 141.166.152.145, K kc chan, Riva02906 and Mactruth. And the following users want the map to stay as it is: Avala and 195.98.173.10. Therefore, by the powers of democracy, the map must go. Sorry Avala. Bazonka (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) LokiiT (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: SOB AfD

Taken care of. :) GlassCobra 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking

Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? Messages such as these (, , , etc.) may be viewed as an attempt at votestacking. In future debates, please consider using neutrally-worded friendly notices to nonpartisan audiences. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, canvassing and votestacking are verboten as per WP:CANVASS. Please use friendly notices in any future instances. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

I made renaming/move of Russian-Georgian war as you and others suggested. Now please help with modification of the content. I have to run right now, unfortunately.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any clarity on this issue. I suggest starting a fresh page move request, per the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, with just two alternatives: the current name and the most popular other name (perhaps "Georgian–Russian War"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Ukrainian political crisis

Thanks for your work on 2008 Ukrainian political crisis, but don't you (also) think the article is getting a bit long. I do :). I suggest we wait till there is a new government or election and then start cutting it, we should/could(?) know what events where really important then... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial and economic crisis merger

A template suggesting a merger had been up for a long time and on either talk page their were no objections. Also, I did a text dump merger so it was almost guaranteed there would be incongruities. I placed a section-cleanup tag for that. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I had seen the template for a long time, mabye someone removed it and then someone replaced it. --Ipatrol (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your arrogance and rudeness

Comments such as this fall far short of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You should consider going back and redacting comments on contributors, and focus instead on content. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Q Group nominated

I noticed you recently contributed to the article Q Group. I have nominated this article for deletion and thought you might like to know and perhaps share your opinion on the page's nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Q_Group. --  bsmithme  05:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hello. Recently I noticed your anti-vandal work on the David E. Carter article. The easiest way to clean up vandalism and spam is via the rollback tool. If you are willing to abide by the rollbacker rules (see WP:ROLLBACK), I would be more than happy to grant you access to this function. If, after reading WP:ROLLBACK, you promise to follow the rollback rules to the best of your ability, just drop a quick message on my talk page saying as much and I will update your rights. Thanks again for your help in keeping Misplaced Pages clear of vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful not to edit-war on North American Union

Hello. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule in regards to edits to the North American Union article. It appears that you have twice reverted (, ) the article back to your preferred version . Rather than engage in an edit war, please consider further discussion of the issue on the article's talk page instead. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Template:Z9

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24 h), I have blocked your account temporarily. While you are using the talkpage and making other constructive changes, you are engaging in a long-term edit war against consensus at the talkpage. If you find yourself unable to convince the other active editors at an article of the merits of a particular edit and if following extensive clearly set forth discussion you find that you remain convinced of your original opinion, please moot your edit to the wider community. The several WikiProjects at the top of the talkpage might be watched by editors who could become interested if you clearly, concisely, and neutrally lay out the history of the dispute and the reasons why you maintain your stance. You might also consider filing a request for comment on the matter. Simply inserting or removing the same text repeatedly, however, is nothing more than unproductive edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should really consider who I would be edit warring against. Consensus is not a majority vote. All three of the editors who reverted my changes hold the exact same opinion not only on my edits, but on the subject itself. The first revert came here, then I reverted that. This was followed by another revert by Canada Jack. I reverted it yet again and as you will see in the talk page Canada Jack changes his mind and agrees with my revert. At this time Orange Mike stepped in and reverted me in Canada Jack's stead who has once again changed his mind. I revert this one more time. Orange Mike once more reverts this. I revert it again. Now Kralizec jumps in and reverts me, furthermore he gives me a warning, while Orange Mike and Canada Jack are not given any reprimand. Indeed, though one could find several violations of the rules by at least one of the editors at no point does Kralizec give either warnings. After I revert it again Canada Jack reverts me. Then after my final revert Kralizec steps back in and reverts me. Amazingly after he reports me and me alone for edit warring Canada Jack rewrites the section apparently conceding that it was poorly-written all along. In all they made 7 reverts together and then seem to concede that one of my reasons for the revert was legitimate. I did engage in an edit war, but it only took place because there were three editors who could tag team reverts rather than doing it alone. However, while they consistently sought to return to exactly the same version my last revert only removed that part I objected to rather than reinserting the portion I supported. In fact, I changed that portion other times to try and meet their objections to no avail. The fact an admin was clearly engaging in what he himself called an edit war, which was started by a user other than myself, is quite inappropriate. If he were being neutral he would have edit-protected the page with my last edit, which did not include either disputed phrase, rather than reverting me and seeking to block me and me alone insuring his preferred version remained in place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia war title

Wont happen. For good or bad, Misplaced Pages has overly conservative rules concerning article name moves. When that vote a while back was successfully rigged in favor of the current title, any reasonable chance of changing it died. I share your belief that the current title is not the best one, but it is simply not worth expending any effort on this. And don't even think of trying without about 20 good sources using a different one. --Xeeron (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it "not the best title" it is the worst title to use because it focuses all the attention on South Ossetia and is the least common name used. The fact so many biased editors favor the current title goes to show it also serves their bias. I can not accept the current title and will continue to seek a change. There is no rule saying the title cannot be changed after a vote or even that a vote is the decisive matter. South Ossetia War is used less and less as time goes by in the major news media, not just in the West, but China, Iran, and even Russia. No argument for keeping the current title has any legitimacy on Misplaced Pages and neutrality was already shot down by several admins as a reason for not changing the title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War title

Your note

Hi TDA, I posted something without getting too involved in the details. I hope it's useful. Crum375 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Xue Hanqin

The article Xue Hanqin has been proposed for deletion because under Misplaced Pages policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners or ask at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Stickee (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

wassup

I don't think weve run into each before except on the current Kosovo status ruling on talk where we agreed. I was just reading your main page "politics" template box and i think we're practically twins (the main page text too if i read it right that you dont support the kosovo thing as is but in theory it could be a-okay). Where have you been hiding? ;) politics and Econ. as an interest...its the ultimate intellectual pursuit. I was wondering where are you from? I see youre probably American. If so whereabouts?

ps- feel free not to answer those q's if you find it too personal. was just pondering cause i was in TX and VA.Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of placement on administrators' noticeboard

You are being placed on the Administrators' Noticeboard for your ongoing POV-pushing and edit-warring in the 7 World Trade Center article. I'm really not interested in hearing you defend your actions again, so please spare us both the time and energy. -Jordgette 01:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

As a result of an arbitration case administrators can impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at 7 World Trade Center

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Jordgette (Result: 1 week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

The Devil's Advocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The blocking admin cited alleged edit-warring on my part as reason for my block. I explained why this was not the case in considerable detail on the noticeboard, but there are some details I would add in a shorter explanation here (this request is still a few paragraphs long, but I hope you won't fault me for that as it is a very complicated dispute). As the admin focused on the removal of material I will focus on that. As explained on the noticeboard my decision to remove material was a result of a discussion on splitting the article into an article on old building 7 and one on new building 7 (I implore any admin reviewing the block to read that discussion because it is very important to understanding my motivation, it is really short so it shouldn't be a problem to read it). :Prompted by that discussion I decided to be bold and merge the information on the collapse in the building 7 article over to the relevant sections in the collapse article so as to reduce the size of the building 7 article. Relevant diffs of that merge are here: . Once the information had been fully and safely moved I shortened the section on the collapse in building 7's article consistent with WP:SUMMARY. Immediately after implementing this change I started a section on the article talk page explaining that I was moving information to the collapse article and my reasons for doing so. Other editors raised objections to my changes and subsequently I made changes that kept information they indicated should be kept despite disagreeing with their reasoning on some changes. Along the way I made several efforts to find out specific objections of these other editors, though most of my questions went unanswered. :In spite of those issues with discussion I made a another edit to try and accommodate their concerns while still trimming the article and, unlike previous edits, that one has apparently gotten approval from those editors. After a week of no objections to that change I made another change to shorten the article that has also been endorsed by those other editors. In addition the previous reverted changes included a number of edits that were undone by rollback reverting and those changes that were restored also largely gained acceptance from the other editors. :So what the blocking admin described as edit-warring to push a POV was in fact a good-faith effort to shorten the article (subsequent to a merge of the excised information to another article) and said effort, consistent with WP:BRD, resulted in a consensus version that ended up being 3 kilobytes shorter. The final edit I made before the listing on the noticeboard sought to shorten and improve the article further as well as addressing other concerns that were brought up. Two hours before the listing I started a section to discuss that edit as well, specifically asking for the reverting editor's concerns. In other words, I was attempting to continue the search for consensus that had already demonstrated some success. Although the blocking admin complimented by debating skills, this consistent effort to achieve consensus including instances of consensus that were achieved by my actions, go unmentioned in the block decision. Such actions would have certainly been relevant as they suggest "a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" that is supposed to be encouraged by blocking. :The blocking admin also cited a previous incident where I was blocked in supporting the decision in this case. However, a review of the blocking admin's argument in that case shows not only that the admin considered that my contributions in other respects warranted lighter action, but even encouraged any reviewing admin to be generous in a request at unblocking my account despite it being a fairly short 24-hour block. It is not clear to me if the blocking admin in this case fully considered the very lenient nature of that previous block or my subsequent contributions to the relevant article. Additionally another admin, Magog the Ogre, in the noticeboard discussion concerning this incident expressed the opinion that this matter was too complicated for the edit-warring section and as such the request should be declined, though this concern does not appear to have been addressed by the blocking admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring in an article on a sensitive topic despite being previously blocked for this. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Second unblock request

The Devil's Advocate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While I remain resolute in stating that my actions were not edit-warring nor an effort to push any POV, I no longer have an interest in making major or controversial changes to articles related to this subject without full and explicit endorsement from other contributors to the article. It has been three days and there are other articles, with no connection to the subject of the dispute, that I am interested in contributing to as soon as possible. There are also some stylistic and structural changes, not altering any content, that I would like to make to articles related to the disputed subject. As I said, any changes more significant that relate to content I intend to discuss and receive approval for before making.The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am unwilling to unblock you while you are denying the reason for the block. You several times edited part of an article back to the same or substantially content after others had changed it away from that version. That is edit warring. It doesn't somehow not count as edit warring because you think that your edits were justified, nor because you are discussing or attempting to discuss the edits you are repeatedly making. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Response

I never just assume I am right about something and I look hard at the question when anyone says I am wrong. However, I cannot, from looking at policy, see how my actions can be thoroughly evaluated objectively and still be called edit-warring.

The policy page on edit-warring references the bold, revert, discuss cycle and in that article it says the following:

Edit warring

• Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.

• However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or better yet, considerably less time than that. You want to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best.

The second paragraph describes exactly what I was doing with the shortening of the section. Exactly describes it. I made a change, they reverted, we discussed, I made bold changes during the discussion to try and find consensus based on their objections. I did not just restore the first edit I made. As I said on the noticeboard, the only thing I felt was close to me engaging in an edit war was the dispute over the one sentence. However, even if you count me as making three reverts within 24 hours regarding those three or four words I still went to the discussion page afterwards to present my reasoning and got multiple responses from several editors, some of which were helpful. The subsequent change I made regarding that sentence that the blocking admin counted as a revert was a substantial change not only in the words used (that, in my opinion, were far more convincing than an absolute statement) but in its placement in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

May I make a comment? Even if you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you technically did not edit-war in this case, this is not a court of law. You violated the intent of the edit-warring guideline. You got mixed up in a highly controversial topic, you reverted some reverts, and you made an awful lot of noise. You realize that even if you made a dozen or so solid, non-controversial improvements to the article in question, this value to Misplaced Pages is far outweighed by the time burden you have placed on other editors and admins over the past month. If three admins tell you the same thing definitively, for example, I don't see how it's in your best interests to keep "talking back" at great length. Here you are blocked and you still can't seem to stop yourself from typing in the last word. This is not helpful to Misplaced Pages. Just let it go and use it as a learning moment, and next time try to take a hint when people start to get annoyed — and chill out. If you create more work for other editors and admins than your efforts are worth in the long run, there will be backlash. Feel free to delete this comment if you wish. -Jordgette 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Except I did not violate the intent. There is no special standard for what counts as edit-warring depending on the topic's importance or controversy. All that a topic's importance or controversy might change is how strictly that standard is enforced. As for my "best interest" being to say that I was edit-warring, I could easily do as you suggest, but I would be lying. I am not going to lie, especially not when that means saying something is wrong when I believe it is right. Perhaps you should consider that the disruption does not come from someone who makes every effort to discuss and accommodate your views, but from an individual, or group of individuals, who go around citing every policy but WP:NPOV (except to accuse an editor of violating it when said editor makes changes they do not like) to make statements of absolute fact in an article about a building while openly declaring that they do this for the purpose of preventing potential readers from adopting views for which they express open disdain concerning an issue involving the building while an article on the actual issue has hardly any mention of the building. Exactly how thoroughly have you evaluated your own behavior?

Before I started making changes to the article there was not even a wikilink to the theories on controlled demolition (a change that appears to have occurred a whole month before seemingly without any regular contributors, who supposedly monitor the article, noticing), despite the fact said theories are explicitly mentioned. That same sort of issue is one of the reasons that was cited for stripping the article on the 9-11 attacks of its featured article status. I push for adding information noting that NIST itself suggested they could not rule out the use of thermite (prefacing it with words like "it added" essentially saying "according to NIST") and this is claimed to be pushing a POV. Yet other information from NIST is apparently ok to state as absolute fact (resisting any change that clarifies this is "according to NIST") like the remark "first known instance" that you and several other editors insisted was perfectly ok to treat as unquestionable fact because NIST said it, despite NIST's own uncertain comments regarding one of the prominent explanations given by conspiracy theorists.

The best proof of POV-pushing is the use of a double standard. I insist on an addition stipulating that NIST itself expressed a lack of absolute certainty on one of the more popular controlled demolition theories and I am accused of trying to push a POV, while you insist on unqualified remarks that treat a contradicting remark by NIST as absolute fact and somehow I am pushing a POV merely for suggesting there should be a stipulation that this is what NIST said, as opposed to hallowed truth. Do you realize that you would in fact be the one guilty of a double standard in this case, not me? Hell, do you honestly think stating a major scientific research institute says this is a fact is legitimizing the opposing view? If someone says 99% of climatologists consider anthropogenic global warming the best explanation for our changing climate would you scream that this person is trying to convince people that the 1% is correct?

Your abundance of support, from admins or anyone else, only indicates that your POV is one that more people sympathize with or support. That does not mean your view is not a biased one, though it makes it a loss likely that you will recognize it as such. Go into basically any discussion forum and say "I do not think rapists deserve to be disemboweled, they're people too for heaven's sake" and you are likely to find that the entire community will come down on you like you just spat on Mother Theresa's grave. People will accuse you of having no sympathy for the victims of rape, hating women, and possibly being a potential rapist yourself. Simply because you are the only one not reacting that way does not mean you are the one acting out of irrational bias.

If the tables were reversed and you were up against two to three people blatantly pushing a conspiracist POV would you really indulge any call to fall on your sword for the good of Misplaced Pages? Anyone who is actually interested in the good of Misplaced Pages would never accept such a notion, recognizing that providing a precedent for suppressing dissenting views only does harm to Misplaced Pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional point on this is that my proposed change regarding the "known" sentence was consistent with WP:INTEXT.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind then. I was trying to level with you and help you understand why you are being ostracized. But apparently you can't possibly have done anything inappropriate, abrasive, or disruptive, your incredibly long defensive screeds are great for Misplaced Pages's best interests, and three editors and three admins are just totally wrong. Consensus means whatever you personally think is right, not what the community finds collectively, as indicated by the many lengthy essays submitted on why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Got it. -Jordgette 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I could go on about systemic bias and tell you why the majority agreeing with a position is not proof of its validity, but I imagine that would be wasted on you. Consensus requires that the people involved be impartial. Can you honestly say you do not feel a stronger level of hostility and awareness as it concerns material that relates to conspiracy theories? You and several other editors involved have certainly demonstrated a lack of awareness concerning anything that serves your POV as I pointed out. Someone removes the wikilink to the controlled demolition article and that change stays around for a month. Someone inserts puffery to promote the official version of the collapse and it goes unchallenged for years. I have seen this in another article related to conspiracy theories as well. The same sort of arguments are used even, including by admins who frequented the page. Your whole "it is cited to a reliable source so I can have Misplaced Pages say anything that source says without qualification and not violate NPOV" defense on some issues is identical. Unfortunately, while that obtuse kind of reasoning might be called for what it is in most other cases, when it comes to a subject that is of any interest to debunkers such standards fly out the window. Suddenly you have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to debunk conspiracy theories and locking out contrary discussion with complete impunity.

Look at the scenario I gave below. Do you think the same arguments you have made here when made against removing in-depth details concerning OJ Simpson's murder trial from the article on OJ Simpson and having that information instead be in the article on the trial would be perceived as neutral efforts to maintain an impartial consensus? I don't think a single admin on all of Misplaced Pages would give your talk any serious consideration or think for a moment that you were doing anything but disrupting Misplaced Pages to push a POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What the email said

To make this discussion easier to follow for the block reviewers here is the email I had sent to The Devil's Advocate on 12 November:

There is nothing confidential in your email, so please make any arguments on Misplaced Pages on your user talk page. Off-wiki discussions of blocks should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Your claim to be only making stylistic and structural changes would be more credible if others agree with you that they are merely stylistic and structural. The fact that you ran into so much opposition ought to make you think twice about the neutrality of your proposed changes. I have your user talk on my watchlist so I should see any comments that you make.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the e-mail I had sent before that:

I would like to dispute your statement that I was pushing a POV, but first I would like to present a more brief summary of my edits. An editor started a section on the article talk page suggesting a split (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Split) and I endorsed the idea he presented. Then I state that size is one consideration supporting a split, though stipulating it could be achieved by moving information on the collapse to the article on the collapse, which had hardly any information on building 7. I then preformed this move (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&action=historysubmit&diff=457065325&oldid=456582780) and shortened the collapse section in building 7's article. Within minutes of the change to the building 7 article I started a section on the talk page (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Trimmed_9-11_section). Look at the the dates and times on the discussion closely and on my edits to the article. You will see that each subsequent edit kept material they objected to me removing as part of summarizing the section.

Now as to the accusation that I was pushing a POV you should look at this discussion directly relating to 9-11 conspiracy theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Q_Group

As you brought up the NAU article I think you should also look at this comment I made in that article's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:North_American_Union&diff=358325656&oldid=358314720

Compare that remark to this one in the edit-warring noticeboard concerning this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=459769322

Consider, if you will, that this had nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Say it was about a notable murder case like the murder of OJ Simpson's wife Nicole Simpson. Imagine that every argument and comment was essentially the same with the exception that it was about OJ Simpson and the murder case. Were I moving information from the OJ Simpson article that concerned the murder to an article on the murder and summarizing the information on the murder in the article on Simpson, arguing that the article on the man should not contain so much material on his alleged act when there was an article on that very subject, would my changes be considered good-faith edits or edit-warring to push a POV?

The fact the section in the building 7 article has a See Also wikilink to the page where I moved information, with me changing said link to go directly to the section in said page concerning the collapse, makes the claim I was attempting to hide or conceal information damaging to conspiracy theories seem rather silly.

--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to EdJohnston e-mail

In the above when I say "stylistic and structural" I was talking about edits I want to make, not ones I have already made. However, if you want to know what kind of changes I am referring to see the changes I made before the block here and here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The first of the two examples just above of "sytlistic and structural" edits includes changing first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires to was believed to be the first instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires - one of the changes that was opposed. Moreover, his structural changes were a big part of the problem. The Devil's Advocate wanted to move the material about 9/11 to another article. This was not generally supported. Structural changes to a stable article in a controversial area should not be made without consensus, let alone against consensus. Tom Harrison 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not including the change to that sentence. What I specifically was referring to are the section headings. However, it should be noted that the change to the sentence replaced "it is remarkable because it is the first known instance" not merely changing the one word. Amazingly that obvious bit of puffery I highlighted had apparently been in the article unchallenged for over three years. Just another one of those bizarre oversights by the motley crew of "skeptics" roving the article that I noticed within minutes of editing said article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also add this claim I was going against consensus is absurd. A "consensus" of biased editors disputing a change is no different than one biased editor disputing a change. For consensus to be a legitimate claim it must be reached by impartial editors. This case involves editors who make their disdain for conspiracy theorists clear, as well as their desire for using articles to counter conspiracy theories. As far as moving the information, the only thing that was disputed is shortening the section in building 7's article as part of such a move. Claims that I was "giving people the run-around" or somehow looking to conceal information damaging to conspiracy theories are the only real reasons given for opposing that action, despite said information being in an article directly linked from the collapse section of the building 7 article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration enforcement

I have requested enforcement of the arbitration case relating to September 11 for your edits on the 7 World Trade Center article. Your account is subject to discretionary sanctions as a result of this request. -Jordgette 05:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there The Devil's Advocate, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:The Devil's Advocate/Sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

This is to inform you that, as the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban is through 30 December 2011. --WGFinley (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)