User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2014/October

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cwobeel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An topic you recently edited or contributed to Talk discussion on is the subject of discussion, if you would like to participate: [1]. This is a blanket notice given to all editors. DocumentError (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Once I realized that Winkelvi was correct, I also realized that I had to race to revert the first person who thought I was correct, or we'd suffer from Policy Is Absolutely Clear Stupid Edit War 2. A thousand minefields and counting, apparently. Choor monster (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Cwobeel (talk)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia honest. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISIS. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't lose your head over this. (this message was intended for the section above, but it's funnier here)Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, "opinionating on stuff" (in ref to ANI discussion of HiLo8), and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be wise to watchlist the articles I listed as supporting the idea that including such names has long precedent in Wikipedia. The couple of editors who oppose such inclusions have shown themselves willing to be WP:POINTy about the issue, demonstrated by their behavior at the article on Jenna Bush. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. DocumentError (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ashok Chakra Award. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:John S. Wisniewski.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit here, [2], while no doubt well intended, does not do justice to what the sources say. So rather than avoiding WP:OR, I'm afraid your edit goes in that direction. Again, I'm sure your intentions are the best. I see no point in edit warring so I started a discussion about it at the talk page.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pls discuss in talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, did you read the note before editing?Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did. Please discuss in talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because its easy for stuff to get lost in the frenetic editing on the talk page, I think WP:RS/AC is met by a mile with no need for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - but I disagree with Jeppiz and think the minority view can be mentioned (as long as we clearly identify that it does not have wide acceptance) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

yes agree on both counts. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Much more important than the debate above I think is the mass removal of content. I Think this 5 day old diff is ridiculous and such a massive change with no discussion goes way beyond WP:BOLD. I suggest we go back to Sep 29 and start over. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Diff, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKO, you really shouldn't be editing other people's comments, as you did here. Kelly ^hi! 14:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. TALKO is a guideline, WP:BLP is a policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kelly: I find it peculiar that you would comment here, but would not comment on that user's talk page about his ongoing and relentless verbal abuse against subjects of articles and fellow editors. Please don't post on my page unless there is a compelling need. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwo, you don't seem real concerned about talk page guidelines when trashing conservative article subjects, sources, and editors. Also, "refactored" isn't really a word, and to the extent it is, you're using it wrong. REDACTED is the correct word. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, I have not trashed anyone. If you think I have done so, please provide diffs so that I can learn not to. As for refactoring or redacting, I hope you'd agree with me that calling a LP an idiot, or a moron, is not conducive to a useful debate. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thefederalist.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-LGBT. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arab Winter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Cwobeel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video.The discussion is about the topic Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thank you. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Did my part, any chance to deliver some !votes for your proposed compromise? If you can nudge some of the pro-deletion folks, I will prompt !votes from four or five pro-inclusion editors. Let me know what you can do. I would prefer to be done with this sooner rather than later. In any event, I want to gauge the support for compromise, or see if certain folks are still stuck on "no way, no how." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the proposal is there for them to see. Hope they will comment on it soon. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You reverted an edit that did today. Your revert is here: revert. You reverted me when I restored non-controversial information about Ernst and when I did not even make a comment. You reverted me and then you told me that my comment was not needed. The fact is that Ernst is an American. This has been in the article for years. An anon editor removed this morning--info that has been in the article for years and I simple reverted it and made no comment to the anon editor or anyone else. Also, mentioning the nationality of the subject of bio article is standard MOS practice. Please, before you revert me again, go to the Ernst talk page and explain why you want to remove basic information about Ernst and basic information that follows MOS.--NK (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Listen. We don't have to fight about this very simple issue. This is a non-controversial matter. Please review the MOS here: MOS Bio Opening Paragraph.--NK (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No need to editorialize "serves as". We can simply provide facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have learned that you don't like to admit when you have made a mistake. Now, the good new here that we are discussing a very small topic. We are not debating the whole article, just a few words. I will point out to you once again that I did not pick those words. The words that I added back into the article has been in the article for years. I did not pick "serve". I merely reverted the anon editor who choose to remove the wording that has been in the article for years. The burden, in this situation, is on you to explain how the word "serve" is an editorial. You are the editor who is attempting to remove standard wording from an article that has used that wording for years. If someone works at McDonalds and they cook hamburgers then they are in the "service industry". Did I just make an editorial by using the word serve? No, I did not. In the Bill Clinton article the opening sentence states, "is an American politician who served from 1993 to 2001 as the 42nd President of the United States." In the Jimmy Carter article the opening sentence states, "is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who served as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981". In the Ronald Reagan article the opening sentence states, "was an American actor and politician. He was the 40th President of the United States (1981–89), and served as the 33rd Governor of California (1967–75) prior to his presidency". In the article about the older President George Bush the opening sentence states, "is an American politician who served as the 41st President of the United States (1989–1993)". In the article about the younger President George Bush the opening sentence states, "is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009, and the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000". In the article about our President Obama the opening paragraph states, "Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review". I have provided 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. I could go on and on. Your edit is inconsistent with the MOS and your edit is inconsistent with almost all of the bio articles on politicians. You have not met your burden.--NK (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will discuss in talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your diligence on Alison Lundergan Grimes. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I edited the furry fandom page just now but then you removed it saying it wasn't constructive, mind elaborating a bit?

-§wagM°nkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.17.194 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious to you why[3]. And if you don't, you should not be editing Wikipedia.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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 full report is at this edit warring complaint (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cwobeel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@EdJohnston: I don't think I edit warred, please re-check my contrib list [4] (the four edits starting 13:49 and ending 13:53 were consecutive, to provide rationale in edit summary), but if I did it would be well deserved. In any case, I will be happy not to edit that article until Jan 1st 2015 if that would help. I request unblock so that I can continue patrolling BLP/N and recent changes and edit other articles. If that is not acceptable, I will understand, and enjoy my wiki break. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on the discussion below, you still have no insight into what constitutes edit warring. Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (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.

• Comment Hi, Cwobeel! I don't know if you edit warred or not. But I do know that I didn't. Your comment to me at the AN3 page, "Don't you think that reverting three times in a row yourself in the last couple of hours, each revert against a different editor, while this report is still open is a pretty bad idea? ", was incorrect. I actually reverted twice, both times against FactChecker. I then not only stopped, but said at the talk page that I was not going to revert a third time.[5] I'm posting this here because I see you can't reply at the AN3 page where I pointed out the error. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh - looking at it again, maybe you weren't speaking to me. Maybe you were speakingn to Winkelvi, who DID in fact revert three times against three different editors. In that case it's probable that Edjohnston misread your comment and thought you were talking to me. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the indents... I was indeed speaking about Winkelvi. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I'm not going to decline your unblock request because I prefer that EdJohnston first reviews your offer. However, I will note that you reverted five times on the same day: 3:25, 3:48, 4:02, 4:17 (last time of a series of edits), and 13:54 (last time of a series of edits).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Bbb23, I just checked these 5 edits and I don't see how these are reverts. The 3:25 was a partial restore of material that the opposite parties in the edit dispute wanted re-added, and an attempt to address their concerns about removal of content. The 3:48 was another partial restore and adding a source. The 4:02 was an edit to remove a few words as we had a wikilink to a full article. These three edits are normal in the course of an editing session and were made in good faith to address editors' concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I agree with your accounting of reverts. I'd welcome your opinion on whether to grant unblock and whether conditions should be required. Cwobeel was blocked twice before in 2014 due to warring on American public issues: Ted Cruz and Shooting of Michael Brown. You undid Cwobeel's most recent block due to him making a concession which seems to have led to no long-term improvement. There is reason for admins to be firm about revert wars on American politics during the runup to the November elections. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I understand what you are saying, but I have been very careful since that instance. And if you look at my edits in this article in detail, you will see that these are the opposite of reverts: these were attempts to address the concerns of the editors that wanted the content restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I understand that blocks are not supposed to be punitive, so even if you would disagree with me on the nature of these edits, why the block? My last edit on that article was way before the block. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cwobeel, it's no wonder that you continue to edit-war given your misunderstanding of what constitutes a revert. Any substantive change counts. Restores count. Your good faith is immaterial. A lot of editors claim they revert in good faith. Five reverts is crazy. Based on Ed's comments, I'm going to decline the unblock request because your promise not to edit this article is not good enough as it doesn't prevent you from edit warring elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23: I am totally confused. Do you mean that attempting to restore content that the other side of the dispute wanted restored is a revert? Is that not useful to try and achieve a compromise? Puzzled. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, and if you would not consider an unblock, I would appreciate a clarification. what I read at WP:3RR is An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. How this applies here? Should I stop editing an article at all when there is a dispute? A clarification would be much appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you restore something someone else wants restored? Let them do it, or let someone other than a person embroiled in the dispute do it. If this is your idea of being "very careful" ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Why? Because there were two sides: one side wanted content deleted (me included) and the other side wanted the content to be kept. During the day the article was left with material deleted and editors of the opposing side unhappy with the result. So I went ahead and tried a few edits to restore material as a compromise. I think that is called WP:OPPONENT. But I see your point, and if that type of approach is considered edit warring, lesson learned and I will take the forced break and swallow my pride. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, EdJohnston: As you both have reached the same conclusion, and I am still confused, I sincerely want to understand the difference between my edits on that article and a normal editing session in collaboration with other editors or an actively edited article. Please note that I am not asking you to revert your decision, I just want to understand.

This is what I don’t understand: If I am editing a section in an article in which there is substantial editing activity, are you saying that I should I just make three edits in 24hrs? If I make more than three edits under which circumstance that would be considered edit-warring? After all, any edit on an actively edited section could fall under the definition of a revert as you have determined. If it is OK to edit more than three times in 24hrs as I presume, could please explain how to do that? - Cwobeel (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Any edit which is not a pure addition of new content probably removes something from the article that was there before. If the article is calm, nobody cares. If a dispute is going on, the thing you are removing is probably supported by other editors who are likely to disagree with your change. The safest course is to wait to find out what they think (via the talk page). EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston: OK, that much I understood already. But what happened here is that in two of the edits in question I added content that the other side of the dispute wanted added ([6], [7]), and one was an addition of new content [8], thus my confusion about this. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no emergency that required you to fix the article immediately. You thought you were being helpful to others by restoring material they wanted, but you did not wait to get any feedback. It was not even clear that a majority supported these restorations. (How would you know, you didn't wait to find out). EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If that content had been removed by you, that may be considered that a self revert which would not count. If it had been removed by anyone else (nominally on the same side as you) you are reverting them. We the additions (or other versions similar) in the article previous and removed from them within the previous 24-48 hours? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point of view, but I'd also expect you to see mine. This was a borderline issue that would have resulted in no sanction without someone with which I had a number of content disputes poisoning the well on EdJohnston's talk page [9] to try and get even. In any case, I have learned a good lesson here: There are people in WP (not any of you, I appreciate your comments and thank you for them) that seem to be more interested in childish vendettas and pompous posturing, than in improving the pedia. See you all in a few days. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. X and I came to a compromise on the lede and ordered the issues in alphabetical order. I placed Abortion first in good faith, please return the order. Arzel (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible that an editor would delete actual news from a legitimate news source, and then claim that the news source is biased. The news article is public. Biased or not it is out there. The bias is coming from those editors who are trying to pick the winners and losers before any discussion takes place. Maybe the Washington Examiner is not the only source of what you refer to as "bias". You have judged yourself. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:384:3C56:D136:77FE:C504 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you were providing these sources with an interest in improving that article, that would be one thing. But by your comments, it is clear that that is not your intent. Please read WP:BLP, and stop the nonsense. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is generally very complementary to Wendy Davis and there is no insight as to why she will be a failed candidate AFTER November 4th. There has to some??? explanation as to why she failed so miserably (-20pts) against Greg Abbott. The Washington Examiner is offering a comprehensive analysis of her campaign. Many of the arguments make sense. Do you know why she is losing? No you don't and nor do I but a news source has made an effort to list the serious failure in her bid for Governor. It is a legitimate argument and should be part of the post mortem after 11/4/2014. That is worthwile information. What is disturbing is that you are so intractably obstinate that it is unworthy of discussion in TALK. Millions of dollars are being spent on this campaign and you claim that the subject matter doesn't contribute to her persona as a political figure? You know that is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:384:3C56:D136:77FE:C504 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if she is losing, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:CRYSTAL. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate you watching this talk page. I was beginning to think no one else thought there was an issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)