User talk:Goodwinsands: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:10, 13 November 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Goodwinsands, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Israel Shamir. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing history?

I am surprised at how much you think you know about policy for a "new user." Were you a long time AnonIP who took a new name? Hopefully you aren't a banned user now using a sockpuppet, something very common in the Israel-Palestine editing area. Thanks for info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't clam to know Wikipedia rules inside and out. I do, however, know how to read, and that is enough for even a newbie to see that there was a considerable difference between what the rules actually say and what you implied they said, a wide enough distance to justify a comment. Goodwinsands (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well add this. When I told some friends that I was thinking of editing Wikipedia instead of just getting frustrated at its inaccuracy, one of the first things they warned me about was "ownership issues" on certain entries, with editors who ceaselessly patrol their turf with intent to repel all comers, using what ever Nixonian dirty tricks necessary to guarantee the article continued to say that day was night and cold was hot, no matter how wrong. And their advice was simple: in such cases, simply walk away from an article like that. This is advice I am weighing. Goodwinsands (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpunch

Thanks for taking a sane editing perspective at the Counterpunch article, where even my attempts to comment on the talkpage are now being redacted for soapboxing, while denial of Holocaust denial is left standing... BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bob. It's very frustrating seeing people fall for the dodge "Just because I don't think Hitler ordered it, or Nazis used gas chambers, or they built extermination camps, or that six million Jews were killed, that doesn't make me a Holocaust denier. There once was a guy named Meyer killed by a guy named Hans, so *that* was the Holocaust, and I don't deny that so don't call me a Holocaust denier."

If you look through the archives of the Israel Shamir talk page, you'll see that there's one editor who repeatedly just blanked any reference to Holocaust denial in Israel Shamir's entry. Then the reliable sources started stacking up, and a quick poll showed he was outvoted something like seven to one. But now the same battle is being fought again from the "Holocaust denial? What Holocaust denial?" folks: "If he doesn't come right out and say that there was no Holocaust, you can't call him one no matter what all the reliable sources say." Goodwinsands (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN Israel Shamir

Hi, disputed cat is under discussion at the BLP noticeboard - please do not replace it without consensus there. Are you aware the article is under editing restrictions - please see the template at the top of the talkpage thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, there was no consensus to remove it, so I replaced it. If you look into the archives of the discussion page, you'll recognize that there was a strong consensus to classify Shamir as a Holocaust denier, and you were apparently the lone dissenter. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus edit-warring notice issued tactically by a POV-warrior and slapped down on sight by administrators

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please revert you revert of my edits and discuss on talk page. I also may have to bring to BLP if other non-biased editors do not get involved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to a 1RR report for reasons stated here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Gilad_Atzmon:_violation_of_1RR. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that working for you, Carolmooredc? Goodwinsands (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rr board doesn't realize the WP:ARBPIA template says we can go there. And there is a debate under 3rr policy whether changes to old material is a revert. So since these things are under debate, I'm going to drop further action. But the policy does need clarification. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your conveniently broad definition of what constitutes 1RR, invoked from thin air to protect a Holocaust denier, fell flat the moment you used it. Once again, Carolmooredc, I strongly recommend you review WP:OWN, because you are setting up (or rather continuing) a very documentable pattern in regards to this article. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) Not necessarily bogus; b)referred to another board where I chose not to take it; c) because of different interpretations of 3rr; c) changing the title of a warning like this to mock the person giving it to you is just not done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving this up as convenient evidence of how you operate. Goodwinsands (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

multiple accounts - another warrior slapped down

Your editing history leads me to suspect you have more than this one account or that this was not your first or primary account and the revert today by User:RolandR in an apparent tagteam revert leads me to suspect a connection between the accounts so I have added a suspected sockpuppet template. Would you please consider clarifying your alternative and previous account? Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course expect a profuse and heartfelt public apology when the CheckUser turns up empty, as it inevitably shall. Knock yourself out. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still investigating and have not requested a checkuser. So, this is your only account? Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Investigating'? Don't you mean 'Accusing, while pretending not to'? If you're such a Sherlock Holmes, so certain of yourself, then go request a CheckUser. It will fail, because I am not Roland R. And then I will expect a profuse and heartfelt apology. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean investigating, would you rather please answer the question - So, this is your only account? Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you mean accusing while pretending not to. Take your bullshit template off my page and then you will be investigating not accusing. But now you're accusing not investigating. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you are not answering this question, So, this is your only account? Would you allow a checkuser to clear this up? Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to honor your fishing expedition, which I believe is quite obviously instigated in bad faith. Will you issue a public apology for your fishing expedition of at least a paragraph when the CheckUser turns up that I am quite plainly not Roland R.? Goodwinsands (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is your only account? This is not a fishing expedition its a standard question when suspicions arise - is this your only account and have you editing under prior accounts? If you have other accounts or have previously edited under previous accounts and not declared them as such when questioned and I have simply got the name wrong then there will unlikely be a public apology until this suspicion is clarified. Can you answer that please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want civil responses, start by pulling that bullshit template - clearly an attempt at bullying and intimidation - down from my page. Otherwise, the bad faith fairly streams forth from you.

If you haven't got the kishkes to call for an sockpuppet investigation, then take your goddamned template off my page. Shit or get off the pot. End of discussion. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to answer the simple question justs compounds my suspicions. Is this your only account and have you edited under prior accounts and would you accept a checkuser request to clear this issue up? If you object to the template you can remove it yourself, but your responses have done nothing to reduce my suspicious. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that you have compounded suspicions. Have you considered consulting a chiropractor?

And, no, it's a matter of principle. You're the one who came in, hands waving and mouth spewing accusations you couldn't back up. I'm going to leave that template up just to show what happens when an editor gets too full of himself. If you find that you have overreached - and you have - then you can take it down. Otherwise, it stays as documenting evidence of your attempts to bully and intimidate those you don't agree with. Kinda backfired on you, this bullying attempt of yours, didn't it? Goodwinsands (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, what the hell, I'll request the checkuser for you. Goodwinsands (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can ask for a checkuser on yourself. Could you just answer the simple question - Is this your only account and have you edited under any prior accounts? Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll find out what happens; we can watch Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RolandR and find out what they think of your accusation. Maybe if you'd tried an approach different than slapping up that accusatory template on my page, I might have answered your questions. But the way you just sort of kicked the door down and started screaming questions - bad form, bad form. Goodwinsands (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your still not answering my simple question. There is another question from another user on this talkpage about previous accounts - so its hardly a rare position is it - your a single purpose account focused on a single contentious issue that edits intermittently. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you exactly how to get an answer to your question, and instead you just keep robotically repeating it. I'm through here. Goodwinsands (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the editors here, RolandR may be least likely to be Goodwinsands. Unless this is an exercise in good-hand, band-hand sockpuppetry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you, I think." Goodwinsands (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said has removed my suspicions as to your Single purpose account contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that you still have compounded suspicions. Your chiropractor was busy with someone else?

In the meantime, my request for CheckUser was declined because they decided your accusation was too stupid to take seriously; the same admin then came by my page and removed your stupid template.

That went brilliantly for you, didn't it?

Now that this little drama of yours has run its course, I will remove anything else you post here from this moment forward, and for damned good reason. Have a nice life! Goodwinsands (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions sock of User:Spaceclerk

While I didn't think the RolandR accusation plausible, while looking at bookmarks today I accidentally was reminded of User:Spaceclerk who "retired" a week before Goodwinsands appeared, working on some of same articles, particularly Shamir and Atzmon. Both RobRio and I have questioned both accounts as possible socks. Maybe that's what needs to be investigated.

(Note: he attacked me in a "poll" to have me "kicked off" on a since deleted article which is discussed on the talk page. He edited Israel Shamir article among others on Israel Palestine.)

(Note: he immediately started editing on Israel Shamir articles and several obscure Israel-Palestine related articles I edit, including Alexander Chizhevsky which is NOT Israel-Palestine related. So he evidently immediately began to follow me and I just didn't want to deal with it. Do others have thoughts on this?? CarolMooreDC 15:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 :::Now that this little drama of yours has run its course, I will remove anything else you post here from this moment forward, and for damned good reason. Have a nice life! [[User:Goodwinsands|Goodwinsands]] ([[User talk:Goodwinsands#top|talk]]) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
-{{od}}'''Suspicions sock of User:Spaceclerk'''<br>
+==='''Suspicions sock of User:Spaceclerk'''===
 While I didn't think the RolandR accusation plausible, while looking at bookmarks today I accidentally was reminded of User:Spaceclerk who "retired" a week before Goodwinsands appeared, working on some of same articles, particularly Shamir and Atzmon. Both RobRio and I have questioned both accounts as possible socks. Maybe that's what needs to be investigated.
 *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Spaceclerk