User talk:Cybermud

Welcome

Hello, Cybermud! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Goodvac (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Durazo

I rewrote your article on Arturo Durazo Moreno. It had multiple POV and formatting issues. It also is in need of more references. If you have the ability to fix these problems, then please do so. ~BLM (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Greetings Cybermud, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Cybermud, I see that you're fairly new to wikipedia so I'm going to try to explain this to you in as much detail as I can - I hope it's helpful. Just FYI, your comment[1] to me on Talk:Men's rights has a series of 'issues'. First, please don't add another comment to a thread that another user has correctly warned users is violating WP:NOT#FORUM - you should have asked me your question on my talk page, indeed if I wasn't watching that page i would have missed it (which is why I'm replying here). Making forum-style posts to WP is disruptive and keeping a disruptive thread open makes that worse. Also you could have used a less incendiary edit summary. Edit summaries cannot be removed a remark that is inaccurate in an edit summary stays there and for that reason misusing an edit summary is very serious. I realize you might have seen other people do this but it is against site policy to use edit summaries to ... express opinions about other users involved.
To answer your question I did warn them all, all 3 editors, that their points were inappropriate. The difference however between the other two users and the IP is that the IP made a number of bad faith assumptions and personalized remarks. SantaClaus86 was violating WP:NOT#FORUM and if I had seen it on June 10th 2010 I would have "barked" at them directly then - but I didn't. In fact if I had seen the first post when it was made I would have warned that user when it was made - but I didn't. It was the Ip who brought that to my attention - that's part of the reason I 'singled' them out.
All of the problems in that section stem from people using wikipedia like a forum - which is not allowed. Also we don't discuss subjects we discuss changes and sources that's all. And furthermore we don't discuss other users. When we assume good faith we work from the assumption that others are editing with the best interests of the project in mind, which your comment/question to me fails in part to do. If your comment had not included the line "Wow.. pot calling the kettle black?" it would have been fine - but by including it your comment assumes I was agreeing with the other users in the section other than the Ip when in fact I was not. Take a step back before you make a comment to another user and give them the benefit of the doubt - remember this is a text based medium with users from all over the world, people may miss any good natured humour or genuine curiosity in a comment if it's not phrased in a way that they find clear.
As a rule of thumb only when an editor is demonstrably breaking should you infer that they. And then you should be constructive about it. BTW this isn't a warning just a heads-up. I highly recommend the adoption programme (which I see you're interested in) it's very useful as WikiPedia has a number of polices, guidelines and ways of working that may not be immediately obvious to new comers. Also I suggest reading WP:TPG to understand why I was so harsh on the 3 users and WP:NPA why I singled out the Ip - if you've any questions about this or anything else on WikiPedia feel free to ask--Cailil ^talk 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Child abduction in Brazil

Hi Cybermud. I undid the tags you put there and think that this article should be left alone by both you and me for the time being since it appears that things are getting a bit heated. I would suggest that other editors be left to deal with it and, if there are any persistent problems, a call be put out for an editor who has some knowledge of the issue and can take control of it. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I began editing WP precisely because there were no knowledgeable editors handling this subject so waiting for some to come along may take quite a while. I have worked hard for WP to have quality coverage on the topic and frankly the Brazil article is an embarrassment and all the other articles on the topic link to it and are pulled down by its embarrassingly biased coverage. Even the Japan article, as bad as it is, is far more balanced and polished than the article on Brazil. Those tags should not have been removed and the whole article should be rewritten but because I am sympathetic to the LBP's editing it I have not gone and outright removed whole sections of it entirely in the hopes that the other editors will realize they are embarrassing themselves and the topic and make the changes themselves. I've worked on some of the more controversial gender related articles and know that very little of that article will stand up to reasoned criticism or scrutiny based on WP policies. If I were a parent of a child abducted to Brazil that article would have no value to me. It doesn't discuss the legal process, such as hiring an attorney or using the AGU. It doesn't discuss which courts have jurisdiction to hear Hague cases or which courts hear appeals. It has no coverage of domestic Brazilian constitutional or family law or substantive information about criminal proceedings and extradition. It doesn't mention how abducted children are located (ie by Interpol.) It has no real statistics and a journalist looking for real information would not take it seriously as a source for information on the topic since it's says a whole lot without really saying anything. Hatufim in particular is adding the Nazi content, linking TO HIS OWN SITE as a reference, writing about his own kids and creating references that have no link and contain only the text "Brazilian Federal Court Records." He also is taking images from other sources and claiming they are "his own work" eg the child airplane image that I added to the ICA in Mexico article which should properly be attributed to the US State Dept (works by the US federal gov't are free of copyright and can be reused but that doesn't me you can call them your own).--Cybermud (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

International child abduction in Brazil

You didn't finish the AFD. The reasoning just says "reason." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was adding additional comments to the page while you wrote that :) It wasn't clear to me when creating the discussion page that I should have added them at the same time by expanding "reason" (though it makes sense.--Cybermud (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud. You are now vandalising this page. The latest edit was something you had ever even referred to or mentioned before and you have removed my message from your talk page as well. I am warning you to stop now. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Are you aware of WP's fundamental principle Assume good faith? Where do you see vandalism?--Cybermud (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what you are doing? Can you point to where I "removed your message?" You are aware that WP has a history. I cannot magically remove things without it keeping a record of it... Are you sure you're on the right talk page? Vandalism... removed message? If you really mean me I have to ask you to stop w/ your personal attacks against me. Disagreeing with my edits is no reason to violate WP:NPA.

You are right, Cybermud, and I apologise for that statement about the removed message. I left it on another page. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of you telling me what to do SineBot!! :p

PAW at PAS

About this: You mean that I should read this guideline, which says that WikiProjects are the sole and final arbiters of which articles are within their scope, even if you or I can't figure out how the subject of the article relates to the name of the project?

Perhaps now that you know what the actual guidelines are, you'll go self-revert your removal of their template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Thanks for informing me of the revert rule and I apologise. I thought the rule apply to each content but I was obviously in error. Vapour (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fathers's Rights Article

I totally agree with you about the fathers Rights article. I've known about the problem for a long time but haven't had time to deal or energy with the issue as it is clear there certain keen to keep the biased material in place. I've added a number of my concerns to the talk page and I will tag the article to illustrate that it is many problems. I very much hope you can help deal with the many problems we've all identified.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

hi sorry to hear your concerns about having a wikihounder. It's not nice to be hounded on here and I know exactly what it's like. Strange they're also making such strange accusations about me also. Given their level of understanding of Wikipedia it really does strongly suggest a sockpuppet though I can't work out who it might be yet.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've posted a message on your wikihounder's talk page reminding him of the polices in that regards to harassment as the evidence is pretty damning. I'm less certain in regards to the Sockpuppetry issue - clearly it is a someone's Sockpuppet or a banned user but are you sure you've identified the correct culprit? Obviously you know far better than me in term of who you've dealt with in the past but I think a little more evidence or explanation might be useful if you have any. I'm quite good at catching sockpuppets but I can't figure this one out.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I'm not entirely sure who the owner of the SonicYouth puppet is, but Nick seemed the most likely culprit. It's pretty clear that someone created that account just to chase me around though.--Cybermud (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't' really know what the procedure is for finding out who an obvious sockpuppet belongs to in cases like this. I've had no dealings that I can think of with Nick so again that doesn't help. I know that sockpuppetry is a despicable offence but it might be a good idea to be more cautious in this regard and wait a little longer next time so you can accumulate more evidence.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added some comments to the investigation, I'm certain you've got the wrong guy. The sock has significant knowledge of the Fathers' Rights Article, it has to be someone who edits there and Nick does not.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw his response, it does seem like it's somebody else and just a coincidence that I was talking to him in Andrea Dworkin when SonicSpoof first showed up. Could be someone from a different article that decided they wanted to jump in on our debate there like he's done in other articles that I've used talk pages for (such as FRM). Hopefully the admins can sort it out--Cybermud (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ITBH I'm not sure the admins can do much unless you provide evidence. Is it possible to withdraw the case, I'm not really sure of process? I'd suggest you at least admit your mistake on this one with regards to Nick. It's clearly someone from the Fathers' Rights page. You should know that I've had run ins with Slp1 in the past, do you think she is the likely candidate or are they just copying her arguments to annoy you?--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)