User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2015/May

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.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Freddie Gray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second degree. 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) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, that warning on my talk page was a bit rich. I only reverted you one time – and the thing that I reverted wasn't even my edit. I also compromised with you, removing the "list of riots" from the see also section. I'm no edit warrior. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@HydrocityFerocity: see WP:BRD. After someones reverts your edit, discuss.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: Êtes-vous vraiment une grand-mère ? merveilleux!! - Cwobeel (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oui, c'est tout à fait vrai. Mon userpage photo montre mes quatre petits-enfants sur une plage de l'Oregon. (But my French is sadly unpracticed!) Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cuties! My French has been so unused that I could not order cafe-au-lait in Paris without getting in trouble. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agatha Barbara. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we have two disruptive users on the talk page. Just giving you a heads up since you have been essential to the article's developement, they seem unpredictably rampant. I will watch the article to make sure there is no further vandalism. If they continue to be disruptive, I feel some action should be taken.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Per the Fox news source: "Investigators don't believe the incident is in any way related to Ferguson," St. Louis Police spokeswoman Schron Jackson told FoxNews.com. "The incident is not being investigated as a hate crime." [1]. Please don't re-add this unrelated material again. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)"

If you are going to edit out my contribution because it is "unrelated", please comb through the rest of the page and remove the other unrelated stuff:

On November 25, the body of 20-year-old DeAndre Joshua was found inside a parked car within a few blocks of where Brown was killed. Police initially classified the death as suspicious, later ruling it a homicide.[125] The man had been shot in the head and burned.[126]

Quote from source: "but police have not said whether it's connected to the violence that broke out after the announcement of a grand jury decision to not indict white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of black 18-year-old Michael Brown."

Until police say it is connected this should also be removed.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatnard (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad stuff is not a justification or excuse for more bad stuff. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If you feel other content is unrelated, you are free to boldly remove it or discuss first (in article talk), subject to routine WP:BRD process, but don't use it as a defense. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is funny that here again the same editor is trying to tell people which information is and is not allowed to be mentioned in an article. Cwobeel, it is so obvious you are bias and selective about which articles you edit and how you edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The word is "biased". Do I always have to correct your poor grammar? 107.188.0.209 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Some reason why you posted a BLP alert on my talk page? I haven't posted anything that would even be subject to BLP in about a month, and certainly nothing that would arguably violate it. John2510 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@John2510: This was to inform you of discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN, given the comments you made in talk page and which I refactored here [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... That's not a violation by any stretch. If you think it is, then take appropriate action. Your misguided alerts to people suggest that you're trying to establish some kind of self-perception of potency, and that you've got way too much time on your hands. John2510 (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not "my alert". All editors of BLPs need to be aware on discretionary sanctions, so that is what I did: inform you of them, that's all. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I don't see you plastering that alert on the talk pages of the other editors (and the subject page wasn't even a BLP... and my edits wouldn't have violated BLP if it was). You have a history of using these sorts of alerts to try to intimidate editors when the substance of their editing conflicts with your personal POV. John2510 (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of us are already aware of them due to previous BLP issues and we have already been alerted. Cwobeel's action is quite correct, as if an issue arises in the future, the first question that is asked is "Is everyone aware of the discretionary sanctions". There are editors of all stripes on these articles. Cwobeel and I generally come at these topics from entirely different directions. Learn to collaborate. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scott Walker (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon Collins. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite your erroneous warning, you're still welcome to participate in the discussion. Thanks Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I'd like to hear your justification for restoring via revert a massive, recently added, strongly opposed multifaceted change spilling across multiple sections. Your edit summary only said "Restoring material sourced to academic sources, which are the most qualified". Are you not aware of the fact that simply calling something "academic" doesn't automatically mean it warrants inclusion? Inclusion is based on many factors, including topical appropriateness (in context), space concerns, and quality, with neutrality and the avoidance of POV soapboxing always being an overarching policy concern. Yes, academics have opinions too, not all of them right for inclusion in an encyclopedia's broad country summary article. Avante garde (cutting edge) research on controversial issues is almost always inappropriate, especially if the counterpoints (the other sides of the debate) are being deleted by the same people adding the controversial talking points.

Furthermore, not all of the sources you just re-added are academic. Your first change, switching the Republicans' long standing (and accurate) "center-right" description with "right-wing" isn't sourced at all. The second, the Government finance change, is sourced to a liberal magazine article that's using terms in a totally different context than that of the section and the numerous sources and undisputed facts the change ignores. The Law enforcement change arbitrarily deletes two perfectly legitimate think tank pieces that were there simply to illustrate the fact that the issue of private prisons is the subject of debate, while leaving scores of diverse sources throughout the section like newspapers, leftist think tanks, and leftist activist material that, when presented in one sided fashion, make a mockery of NPOV. The fourth change adds a frivolous attribution to the Heritage Foundation in an Income segment when Heritage is simply relaying publicly verifiable and undisputed facts from government stats. In this case the attribution is misleading and designed to undermine the claim. There are also scores of leftist activist claims in the section that are unattributed, for example the "productivity" chart and sentence that are solely sourced to EPI, a left wing think tank that, unlike the Heritage segment, originally developed the stats presented in an unverifiable way. The fifth change replaced a neutral segment acknowledging the debate over "inequality" themes in a way appropriate for this summary article's detail level and supported by both liberal and conservative representative sources with three totally one sided segments on cherry-picked, niche issues, all of them totally POV in nature. This creates an undue skew and is a laughable NPOV violation.

All these changes you just supported are strongly opposed by multiple editors and are currently the subject of intense talk page discussion. Wouldn't it be better to revert back to the status quo while a true consensus is hammered out on the talk page? I understand that you've said you agree with Ellen's politics, but I've had productive collaborations with other liberal editors here before and I'm appealing to you in this way because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're a reasonable editor. If you self revert I'm sure we can discuss any issues and concerns you have and reach a mutually supportable consensus. Because the current version, and in fairness none of these changes were originally composed by you, is unacceptably skewed and will lead to the dramatic instability that's plagued this article in the past at various times. VictorD7 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am open to discuss, but will not accept collaborating while you are engaged in an apparent edit war [2],[3], [4],[5]. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also ask you to try and being concise, otherwise you run the risk of TL;DR. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wittingly or not, you've backed the two editors trying to ram through a bunch of POV changes by bypassing the consensus building talking page process and ignoring opposition. If you're sincerely interested in avoiding edit warring you should self revert to the status quo, which was long standing and represents the most recent consensus version. And I don't see how to avoid a long post while discussing the changes in question when in your single revert they were so sweeping. These things should be separated and discussed piecemeal. VictorD7 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is now protected, after my request at WP:RFPP. So, there is now a clearing created to hash out differences and find a compromise. From what I see in that talk page, ain't gonna be easy. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on that phrase talk:sexism#That darn lead (or, can we please fix this issue and stop all the debate...please) Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at the editing done at Carly Fiorina with shock. The vast majority of all these edits done on 16 May 2015 are are not noted with explanation. They simply take action at the article and reframes eveyrthing with POV, determinedly and without discussion. With regards to what's been edited, I've even covered many of these points on the talk talk page and since developed them in the article; to which there's no real acknowledgement, counter discussion or contrary point of view. Instead, this other editor has simply gone into the article and wiped section after section. Indeed, in one of the very few notes or explanations made by this other editor, it was again sarcastically stated, including a euphemism for profanity: 14:23, 16 May 2015‎ Bueller 007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,609 bytes) (-300)‎ . . (→‎Criticism and Praise: as i've said before, there is NOTHING about this topic in the interview with greta. watch the frigging thing and don't re-add this nonsense again.) This is not the first time that this editor has behaved in this manner, and its only become worse. I've opened discussions on the Talk Page, as well as that I've asked this other person to stop using sarcastic tone; plus, many of us have also had repeated differences with this editor on POV (to which he appears to be dogmatic); warring and even citation verifications (e.g., bare URLs, a questionable infographic, etc.). Indeed, in his second explanation, the editor says: "14:27, 16 May 2015‎ Bueller 007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,407 bytes) (-2,202)‎ . . (→‎Criticism and Praise: the interview with couric and the quote cited has ~nothing~ to do with this section. the quote used is about her political inexperience, not her performance as a CEO)." But, I have indeed addressed this already, as well as that when you watch the video with Couric, Fiorina is in fact asked "what's your reaction" about both the http://www.carlyfiorina.org website, in addition to the layoffs and her performance at HP. That occurs from minutes 3:25 and forward in the video.^[1] She not only answers the question, but re-frames it… whether we like her re-framing or not. And that's the point being made in the article. This has been her reply: pointing out what Fiorina believes is a double standard, then reframing it and going on to what she feels are her accomplishments and so on. As I've said, it's one of her earliest examples, to which we point out later in the article, similar responses at CPAC, Good Morning America and in other articles and interviews. I think that's relevant to include, instead of constantly wiping Fiorina's address on the topic. Just because someone doe not like how she's answered he question, doesn't discount her address. All said, I'm not sure how to resolve these issues with the other editor, because this problem is occurring time and again. And it's very difficult. Please make suggestions. Ca.papavero (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is this: keep your arguments short. It is rather impossible to follow these long posts TL;DR - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You can read through an an entire article, edit at length and not read through notes. Hence the problem. Ca.papavero (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You will be better served if you are more concise in your arguments. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they are more than concise. They are thorough. It would better help not to be dismissive of the notes on discussion They're not there as "arguments." Ca.papavero (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe time to hit the dictionary? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether you saw my comments at the end of Talk:Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#Survey:_Races_in_the_lead, but, if we're editing before a close, Option 4 seems unsupportable. If you don't self-revert I think there will be a fight that you can't win. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah, you are right. self-reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Before accusing others of advocacy, you should look at your own "edits". Removing even a link to a webmd article as an external source does not look good if you claim I am advocating.There is little I can do to see that the Robert Sears page is neutral, but you did provide a very useful lesson on not using wikipedia as a reliable, unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormAtTheBorder (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 May 2015‎

@BookwormAtTheBorder: The link already exists in the article and is used as a reference. It is redundant to also list the same link in the external links section, so should not also be listed there, per WP:ELDUP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hugo Barra. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we suspicious of the 4 new accounts editing the Hae Min Lee article? —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: I think it is because of the podcast, which attracts attention to this article. I have requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rick Schwartz. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That Edit - Protected (or whatever his/her name is) reminds me of a blocked user named Almighty Camel. Not saying there is yet a conclusive connection, but I wanted you to be aware in case this user verges on more obvious signs of trolling. Best of luck to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheGracefulSlick, I see you have made 179 edit to the article Death of Freddie Gray and 77 edits to its talk page, which I commented on earlier today. I don't know what problems you've had there and I don't want to know. Only stopped by because of the Grand Jury indictments today. I am not a threat. Regards, Edit semi-protected (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected, just like Almighty Camel when he followed me around, you came to this talk page without any pretense that I was mentioning you. You work on the same articles as him, and caused similar disputes as him. I never said anything about the Freddie Gray article, though Almighty Camel did attempt to troll there too. I am not totally convinced you are a threat or not, but we will see.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Check the edit history, Buddy. I was already here and in an active conversation with Cwobeel. Edit semi-protected (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected No, Cwobeel removed the conversation describing it as "trolling", so, again, no pretense. Like I said, I am not yet fully convinced, but I will not let you do what I let Almighty Camel do if you are potentially up to similar acts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to edit wikipedia you need thick skin. The term "trolling" as used by Cwobeel wasn't necessarily upsetting to me, as he or she was offended and felt what I said was a deliberate provocation. I apologized and it's water under the bridge. Oh, and you don't need to use that pingy thing as articles I've editted automatically save to my watchlist. Regards, Edit semi-protected (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So be it, but I am going to observe the developments for an unspecified time, so I know that these connections are just coincidental.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I belatedly realized something else and made another tweak. If you could look at it and weigh in at Talk:19 Kids and Counting#Proposed summary of controversy, I'd be much obliged. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, this was an edit conflict. We were both trying to hit some similar themes, so I ended up removing your line. Dragons flight (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dragons flight:. Not a problem. Fixed it now. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)