User talk:ISTB351/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New thread

Hello, ISTB351, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Snowded TALK 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

fake "libertarians"

You keep reverting my edits fixing the improper use of the word libertarian (correcting it to proprietarian). The term libertarian lacks a citation so why would my use of proprietarian need one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.42.17 (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the existing unsourced usage considered original research that should be removed? 76.29.42.17 (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

not intended to be vandalism

My editors were not intended to be vandalism. I moved all the text to the talk page for discussion and identified the issues there. We can restore it as the issues are resolved. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Scottish elections

Sorry about that. I didn't spot that it was in two sections! Cheers, Number 57 15:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No trouble, should have made the original edit summary clearer. ISTB351 (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Snowded and Lam Kin Keung / HeadleyDown Meat/Sockpuppetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HeadleyDown

http://sites.google.com/site/sockmasterouting/ [[1]]


A detailed run-down of HeadleyDown and his meat/sockpuppets is here: https://sites.google.com/site/exposingsocks/ [[2]]


http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/15975-master-sock-puppeteer-outed.html [[3]]

http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/15975-master-sock-puppeteer-outed-2.html [[4]]

Note the comment: by James Donnelly

I am a skeptic myself like some other NLPers. However, the NLP article is far from balanced. It looks like a blatant attack on NLP. The website you linked is quite clear on one thing: Pro NLPers have never been banned. That should tell you something: Wikipedians other than youself realize your editing is highly biased. Of course they allow others in to balance the picture.Good luck with promoting your side and routing your foes. I think it will backfire badly though. You and your pseudoskeptic friends will just end up getting banned again. CheersJamesD

Here's what happened the last time: [[5]]

And last but not least, the Wikipedia ban on HeadleyDown+sock/meatpuppets and any reincarnation of him, based upon BEHAVIOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.106.37 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I provided a reference for my previous edit

Thanks, the new edit has a reference, see Government of Ireland Act 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics

Regarding this edit, "The Right Honourable" is not used before names inline. See, for example, David Cameron; David Freud, Baron Freud; and Nicholas Wilson, Lord Wilson of Culworth. Also see MOS:Honorifics. Cheers! -Rrius (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re 84.10.140.247

user already reported to ARV Taroaldo (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your NLP revert

I didn't think it clear, since the 1981 source listed was ReFraming; I asked about it, and got this reply -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=473104997 If you have a fuller title, please insert it. htom (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Wifione Message 14:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For beating me on the revert to Gazpacho. Keep up the good work! Bped1985 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem

Seems like that IP has some competence issues. -waywardhorizons (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Zhukov

The paragraph itself is not quoted, and I just transfered it to the above position with very minor edits. I delete the thing "Khruschev confirm about that..." because the abov part of the article already says about Zhukov shouted to Beria, without using "colorful languages". Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Chris Huhne

While I appreciate the efforts that you have gone to to keep Chris Huhne's page up to date, I think that at this point it is perhaps worth bearing in mind the aspiration of neutrality to which all responsible wikipedians must endeavour. Please do continue with your edits, many of which I see have been of use to the development of legal articles, but remember that the inclusion of certain statements over others can also be interpreted as a form of political steering. It is clear that you wish to propagate a particular form of conservative agenda, one which I hasten to add I neither condemn nor support, but my duty entails that I must urge you to keep this to a minimum and ensure that all of your edits are both neutral and focussed. Ever yours, Reichsfurst (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Meany! You took my revert. You've earned it. Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

KKK=

Sorry, but the article content in no way supports the claim that this is a neo-nazi outfit. Throwing all right-wing groups together in one big heap is a perilous enterprise. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sections 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 in fact suggest that Nazism has considerable currency within the contemporary KKK. It is not a question about "[t]hrowing all right-wing groups together in one big heap", but about the lede reflecting the article, and implicitly the sources. ISTB351 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential misuse of 'Huggle'

Looking at the page for Sophie Winkleman I was having a peek at the recent edits and saw that you had reverted an edit as vandalism and warned the user on the grounds of 'addition of unsourced negative content to a biographical article'. Having looked at the edit I do not think that your revert or warning was appropriate. None of it was in the slightest bit 'negative' - the first half of the edit was a helpful clarification and the second half could easily be conceived as not contentious enough to merit the need for a source. However, you would be quite right to point out that it is always better to be safe than sorry - and so the best approach would have been to add a 'citation needed' and certainly not to pursue the policy which ultimately has led to the harassment of User:66.41.26.63 in a clear violation of not only wp:agf but all the guidelines accompanying both Huggle and Rollback. Of course I myself do not wish to be hypocritical and so assume good faith on your part as well but please do bear this in mind and be more careful in future. Reichsfurst (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear on this: a source is required for all material on such articles. That was the reason for the reversion. Perhaps I could have selected 'Addition of unsourced content' as the edit summary rather than the one I gave. But in the grand scheme of things, policy dictated that the edit was reverted. ISTB351 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Guildford four

The reason the Guildford four are notable is because if the miscarriage of justice. Sentences of prisoners are often quashed and that is not enough to write an articl ein an encyclopedia. The introduction to this article, in order to be NPOV, has to mention this aspect of it. In addition, if the Prime Minister of a country officially apologizes to someone for their wrongful imprisonment, the term "miscarriage of justice" applied to this person is no longer an opinion, but a fact, since the Prime Minister is responsible for the application of judicial principles in the country. So, let's find a wording which is acceptable to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.86.209 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at talk page. ISTB351 (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Eric Joyce house price

I do not understand what your query is with relation to the price for which Eric Joyce's house was bought and sold. The price paid in 2001 is clearly noted on the Find a Property house prices page, as is the price at which it was sold in 2007. This is a public web site. How is this an unpublished synthesis? The actual address is known to me personally and is not a subject of "research". The house was also clearly shown in an article in the Mail on Sunday about this very subject. Hoovering (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source to demonstrate the notability of the material. At the moment, all you have is a primary source and policy dictates that the material can't be included. Merely because you know things personally does not mean that your additions do not constitute original research and in fact demonstrate precisely the need for independent third party sourcing. The Mail on Sunday article may be adequate, put you need more than what you have provided so far. ISTB351 (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Such as? Do not understand what more you can want. After all, even a newspaper article is only as valid as the person who writes it. Being a neighbour and therefore eyewitness does not constitute sufficient information? His and his wife's name also appeared in the electoral register for that period. Being an eyewitness is valid in a court of law. unsigned comment by: Hoovering (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to read WP:RS. Unless you can find an independent third party reliable and verifiable source which demonstrates the notability of the information, it cannot be included. Wikipedia is not a court of law, but an encyclopedia. These concerns are particularly acute because the article under consideration is a biography of a living person. ISTB351 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What constitutes a verifiable third party source in this case? You have the Mail on Sunday, the electoral register and the property price site. What else do you want?
Hoovering (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Hoovering
The electoral register and "the property price site" are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability. You have yet to provide the MoS article. ISTB351 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Have quoted the Daily Mail article. Hoovering (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Hoovering

hi

this is not my first time in wikipedia... :P i have always wondered if people like you take the time to see what the article says or what the edit i or anyone else did means to the article... well, apparently, not. 46.177.91.74 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied at IP talk page. ISTB351 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I know not everyone is smart, but, if you care to actually read the article you'll find that the members of International Steering Group for Kosovo are indeed 25 and portugal and malta are not among them. Stop using automated software like huggle and read between edits. :P Btw, if you threaten me with being blocked, i will log on and report you about your abuse of huggle... :P 46.177.91.74 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not abusing Huggle or other automated software. Please make a report against me to ANI if you feel that that is the case. You have been removing content without explanation, or citing additional sources. We cannot simply take your word for matters of fact. In addition, your comments here are in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV and the fact that you claim that you have an another account is suggestive of issues of sockpuppetry. ISTB351 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
you just made a mistake and cannot just admit it... :P 46.177.91.74 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I am editing in line with policy, which is that we cite independent third party reliable sources. You are simply edit warring. ISTB351 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello ISTB351, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! ISTB351 (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Huggle

Thanks for your vigilance, but no need to revert any changes to User:28bytes/sandbox. I'm doing some bot testing using this account. ☂ (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies and thanks for informing me. It is only that the edit of another user's sandbox did appear odd to say the least. I have reverted the unnecessary warning that I left. ISTB351 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for the quick response. ☂ (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I was just about to revert, but rollback failed. -- Luke (Talk) 01:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all in both cases, and happy to be of help. Good to see that the user has now been blocked as a VOA. ISTB351 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict: who started the Edit war?

  • nothing blatant about linking to the principles of the controversy as encyclopedic in nature?
  • nothing original see reference to article by Prof Schall of Georgetown Dept of Government
  • no research since the arguments aren't novel, they're all historical, see links to relevant Wikipedia entries
  • no synthesis since no analysis is given, only reporting of relevant school of academic thought on both sides of conflict
  • neutral point of view (NPOV) would be in the eye of the beholder obviously, in a controversy there may be more than two sides. The academic one, that of philosophy of nomenclature of offenses against human nature, also known as violations of universal human rights, may not be as apparent to we volunteer editors as to readers of a Catholic worldview.MrsKrishan (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
What is not in dispute is that you are edit warring at Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, and that you are liable to be blocked if you continue. I reverted your addition because it constituted synthesis and original research. All the material you add must be discussed in reliable, secondary and third-party sources in order to conform with Wikipedia policy. If you feel that your additions do not contravene policy, please raise the matter at the article's talk page, rather than continue to edit disruptively. Thank you. ISTB351 (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you read? I have raised "the matter at the article's talk page, rather than continue to edit disruptively" on the prior page also. I am not deterred by repeated threats to block my contributions. I have requested assistance from User_talk:Ed_Poor#limbaugh-fluke_flap to referee the difference of opinions re: who is being disruptive/ who is doing the vandalism to this article. MrsKrishan (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet you re-added the contested material without further reference to the talk page here. That was edit warring. You are editing disruptively for the reasons given above, which you have not of course addressed. ISTB351 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pablo Aguirre

Hello ISTB351, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pablo Aguirre, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: GRAMMY winner is an assertion of importance. Speedy deletion does not apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Article has now been deleted under criteria G11. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 14:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination on Cordelia Hood. Appearing in 2 reliable sources is sufficient to meet WP:CSD#A7. It is possible that Hood is not notable enough for an article, but notability is a higher standard than A7 and would need to be evaluated at an AfD (feel free to nominate it for AfD if you like). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mafiapedia123

Hello,
can you please return to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mafiapedia123 and provide further diffs as to why you are convinced the two accounts and the IP are used by the same person, and why that use is to be considered WP:ILLEGIT?
Thanks, Amalthea 13:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Further evidence added here. Clearly illegitimate as edits to same topic without declaration of identity. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks on the revert of my talk page! Allens (talk | contribs) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem! ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 22:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material

Hi, in this recent edit you removed material from a page for being unsourced. In this particular case, the information that had been added (albeit without sources) is true. Even if that wasn't the case, the information falls into the "doubtful but not harmful" category - so should be tagged, not removed, according to WP:NOCITE. I know how easy it is to get carried away with Huggle but please do be careful; it's far better to tag unharmful unsourced material, and possibly discuss on the article's talk page, than remove it unless it's in a BLP. Thanks, waggers (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I take your advice on board. It must however remain the responsibility of the editor adding the material to provide sources for additions of material even if not harmful. A level 1 warning for addition of unsourced content gives them ample opportunity to do so. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 11:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my concern about this user editing in a similar way on the wadham college page. Just because something is not referenced or is not referenced correctly it should not be removed. It should be flagged and given a chance to be referenced correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.180 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Syria

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please highlight my "personal commentary". Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting the notion of freedom in Syria, whilst they themselves are dictator regimes. Intervention in Libya has not been beneficial as the rebels do not know how to run a country. This is not 'disruptive editing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana101 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at this talk page is indeed another example of a failure to comply with WP:NPOV. Please read that policy carefully, and WP:OR, before adding material to Syria. Thank you nevertheless for your contributions. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that I am violating any policies. Thank you for your smug remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana101 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also read WP:NPA, before accusing another editor of being "smug" in the future. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 14:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From that article, "Comment on content, not on the contributor" by applying this to "Thank you nevertheless for your contributions" we can see that I said "smug" in relation to your comment, and not you as a person. What good are contributions if they are removed? Seeing as you are an editor with objectivity heavily embedded into your character as per the rules of Wikipedia, perhaps you could edit my postings in accordance with the fancy bureaucratic rules here at Wikipedia. Or link me to another rule outlining supposed violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana101 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the Crusade!

Crusader Cross
Thank you for assisting the Crusade against vandals, hoaxers and other infidels. Trumpkinius (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Please edit responsibly. I'm sure that this message is indeed well intentioned. Other editors might well take a dimmer view. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)

I have provided 3 reliable sources for my addition to this article. Please apologize on my talk page for your knee-jerk overreaction to my edit. 75.2.208.92 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied at IP talk page. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 02:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. Please be sure not to revert edits in the future on topics you know nothing about. 75.2.208.92 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It is policy that we provide sources when adding content to the encyclopedia. In your edit which I reverted you made no attempt to do so, and the edit appeared to be vandalism. After you provided sources, I apologised at your talk page and pointed you in the direction of Wikipedia policies for future reference. I should also now point you to the policy prohibiting personal attacks against other users, given your latest outburst. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 02:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It only appeared to you to be vandalism because you knew nothing about the content of the article or about the German language. That's not a bad thing (i.e., it's not a "personal attack"). One can't be expected to know about everything. But if you don't know anything about an edit, then butt out, instead of leaping to unwarranted conclusions about vandalism. As an aside, plenty of WP editors claim that there shouldn't be citations in the lede, where I made my edit. 75.2.208.92 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Troubles

It is clearly stated in the CAIN report and on other wikipedia pages that the INLA & IPLO had feud. It is also stated in the CAIN report and wikipedia that the Provisional IRA ended the IPLO. This shouldnt be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.192.172 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take this to the article's talk page. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Victor Giurgiu

Hello ISTB351. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Victor Giurgiu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISTB351/Archive_1&oldid=1143056450"