Jump to content

User talk:MaplePorter

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaplePorter (talk | contribs) at 06:21, 30 September 2007 (Blocked for grammar? POV?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.


Welcome

Hello MaplePorter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hu12 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Iraq war

In past discussion, a majority of users opposed the use of the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" subtitle into the infobox on the [[Iraq war] page. Nonetheless, Rangeley has repeatedly re-inserted it. I'm hesistant to just remove it myself again-- could you look the situation over, deter Rangeley from continuing to re-insert the subtitle, and remove it if you feel it is appropriate to do so? --Alecmconroy 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

I'm curious why you'd accuse me of bias. Can you point to any edits of mine that have been clearly biased? Do you feel that your own contributions have been so free of bias that you can sit in judgment of other users? If you really think that I am in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines please feel free to raise that issue in the appropriate places, with sources for verification. However please do not go around making unsupported attacks on editors in article talk pages. -Will Beback · † · 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the charge from the article talk page. I appreciate that. -Will Beback · † · 00:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern

I'm leaving the project. It just seems like a waste of time, because it seems impossible to get an unbiased article on any controversial subject. The place is overrun with fanatics, and the rules are enforced selectively if at all. Ciao. --MaplePorter 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche

I thought I was reverting vandalism (removal of lot of referenced text). You could have written a better edit summary saying you were removing PoV or something, to avoid misinterpretation. Sorry about that, though. --soum (0_o) 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, Dking, your contributions to this discussion, and your edit summaries, are so truculent as to make me wonder whether you are participating in a serious manner.

If you want to comment on an editor, please do on the editor's talk page. Interjecting negative personal comments into a discussion isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This dispute has dragged on for an entire month, beginning with this edit, and it has been pretty much a one man show by Cberlet, with occasional appearences by Dking. These are two editors who in real life are known for their obsessive hatred of LaRouche, and I don't think I am exaggerating at all. I can't image why anyone would think that either of them are capable of editing this article from a Neutral Point of View. Their edits appear to me to be highly disruptive and they ought to recuse themselves from this and related articles. That would be the honorable thing to do, in light of WP:COI.

If you want to comment on an editor, please do on the editor's talk page. Interjecting negative personal comments into a discussion isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

911 suggestion

Thanks for this:

A recent controversy revolves around the testimony of former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, which was broadcast on C-SPAN and which suggests that Vice President Dick Cheney may have been responsible for an order that kept NORAD planes from responding.[1]

A pity it was bluntly reverted by Tom "rm conpiracy theory".

I think we can improve a bit on this edit, though:

  • I believe Mineta assumed Cheney was ordering shootdown, not preventing it, at that moment;
  • What you say is part theory, I think we should not include the speculation in the article, just the facts.
  • The facts are that the jet towards the Pentagon has been traced from as far as 50 miles out. (At 600 mph this would be 10 miles per minute, ergo 5 minutes prior warning.)
  • I think the controversy is not recent, but it is still "unresolved" and may never be resolved.

How about this:?

According to the testimony of former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta before the 911-commission, Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of intercepting and was being informed when the plane was 50,40, etc. miles out from the Pentagon.

? — Xiutwel (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Arbcom enforcement filed

Please note that a Request for Arbcom enforcement has been filed that cites your edits.--Cberlet 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that our responses be duplicated at WP:RfAR as a proposed new case, since Cberlet is not citing any actual violations of previous cases. Do you have any objections to this? --NathanDW 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

NathanDW and Dont lose that number now banned

I was shocked to learn that both these editors have been indef blocked for the offense of restoring a link at the article Chip Berlet that was deemed to violate BLP. In my opinion, if someone can be banned for restoring a link, then Cberlet and Dking have been getting away with murder in terms of BLP violations. I would encourage you to make requests on their talk pages that they clean up their act and stop violating policy. If they fail to do so, two or more of us should file WP:RFC on them. --Marvin Diode 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet. You should sign as one of the users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute, and you must sign within 48 hours. Thanks. --Marvin Diode 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed a request for admin intervention due to the way the new page RFC on Lyndon LaRouche has been transformed into an attack on my editing and reliability as a source. See here.--Cberlet 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

I think you might consider adding El C to your invitation list. BTW, have you considered enabling Wikipedia e-mail? --Marvin Diode 22:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have received quite a few messages regarding mediation, people being banned, and so on. It all seems to be related to Lyndon LaRouche articles. Do you think that you could give me a short explanation of what is going on at Wikipedia with all this legalistic stuff? I'm not sure that I want to join any mediation until I have a better sense of what it's all about. --Gelsomina 14:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was already familiar with Chip Berlet. Thanks for giving me the run-down. --Gelsomina 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

License tagging for Image:ZionismCampaigner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZionismCampaigner.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg

Re: Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg Did you scan this image yourself? If not what is the source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the person who scanned the picture the same as the person who used to edit here as user:Herschelkrustofsky? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. However the claims in this matter do not add up. You have said that the material was scanned from an issue of EIR by your friend, who you say has never edited Wikipedia. Yet the image is pixel-for-pixel identical to one uploaded by Herschelkrustofsky some time ago. It is impossible for a fresh scan of a magazine photo to identically match another scan done on another machine years prior. The implication is that you are not being honest and the obvious conclusion is that this is another sockpuppet account of HK. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, though I don't see how that changes the conclusion. I'll be posting a request for ArbCom enforcement in this matter, and will provide the link once it's filed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about the image, though I do care about the apparent lies regardling its origin. I mostly care that HK keeps using sock puppets to edit Wikipedia long after he's been banned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#user:MaplePorter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for grammar? POV?

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

the blocking admin says that he made the determination that I am a sock, based on "a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views."[2] This is utterly ridiculous. My edit summaries are based on the conventions here, in other words, I use the same expressions most other editors use. The distinguishing characteristic of my grammar is that it is generally correct. And as far as POV is concerned, I am willing to believe that I am being blocked for my POV, which is the crux of the matter, and such a thing should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=the blocking admin says that he made the determination that I am a sock, based on "a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#user:MaplePorter] This is utterly ridiculous. My edit summaries are based on the conventions here, in other words, I use the same expressions most other editors use. The distinguishing characteristic of my grammar is that it is generally correct. And as far as POV is concerned, I am willing to believe that I am being blocked for my POV, which is the crux of the matter, and such a thing should not be allowed to go unchallenged. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=the blocking admin says that he made the determination that I am a sock, based on "a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#user:MaplePorter] This is utterly ridiculous. My edit summaries are based on the conventions here, in other words, I use the same expressions most other editors use. The distinguishing characteristic of my grammar is that it is generally correct. And as far as POV is concerned, I am willing to believe that I am being blocked for my POV, which is the crux of the matter, and such a thing should not be allowed to go unchallenged. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=the blocking admin says that he made the determination that I am a sock, based on "a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#user:MaplePorter] This is utterly ridiculous. My edit summaries are based on the conventions here, in other words, I use the same expressions most other editors use. The distinguishing characteristic of my grammar is that it is generally correct. And as far as POV is concerned, I am willing to believe that I am being blocked for my POV, which is the crux of the matter, and such a thing should not be allowed to go unchallenged. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaplePorter&oldid=161264204"