Jump to content

User talk:Cs32en

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UrukHaiLoR (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 8 January 2010 (→‎Camp Chapman again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Friday · August 23, 2024 · 11:03 · 114,205 · 855 · Last modified by UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs)

 Click here to leave a message for me at my talk page.
The Signpost
14 August 2024

SPA?

What does this mean? This template must be substituted.) why is it important that i have made few edits outside of this post? [[1]] --mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an information allowing other editors, especially administrators, to assess the background of the expression of an opinion. If the opinion comes from an editor who has edited in many other areas of Wikipedia, it is more likely that this editor is making a judgement based on a neutral reading of Wikipedia policies, while editors who are working on one subject area exclusively are more likely to be motivated by their personal viewpoints on the issue. This does not mean that a vote is discounted outright, but it usually is given much less weight, especially if no or little rationale is being given for the opinion or assessment.  Cs32en  16:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for the clarification --mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few or none

That was completely uncalled for. While I'm not the most active Wikipedia editor ever, I can't help that this one article and its talk page needs many more edits that any of the other articles and talk pages (easily outnumbering this single one) I've contributed to before. I registered years ago, have made edits during those years and I'm one of few who edits under their real name (and yes, it's pretty unique at that). Troed (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that your account or your participation at the talk page would not be legitimate. See also my comment in the section above.  Cs32en  16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are, and I would like you to revert it since it's blatantly false. Troed (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are of the opinion that the characterization of your account's edits is incorrect, you may revert the edit with an appropriate edit summary.  Cs32en  16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which I did, and you reverted it. Thanks. Troed (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have indicated the reason for my revert in the edit summary.  Cs32en  19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack DYK

Hey. Just to let you know, I've nominated the Forward Operating Base Chapman attack page you started for DYK. Nice work with that page! — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating the article! I actually don't know about the criteria which are used to select DYK articles. Let's see how things are going.  Cs32en  18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on this article. I don't think I've ever seen one person put together an article this complete, balanced, and informative on a current event in such a short time. Really good work. Cla68 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second the above! The article looks great. Joshdboz (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Williamson (bishop)

You must concede that the article pertaining to his Excellency Bp. Williamson is overwhelmingly defamatory and unfair. I made those modifications in a spirit of goodwill, particularly as there is no firm evidence that his Grace has any extensive relations with either of those individuals. Needless to say, I hope you will honor the new modifications I have made. Best, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.202.74 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated and will state once more, the fact that you are suppressing actual statements of Msgr. Williamson (you can go listen to the Janzen article if you want and the Heiner interview is printed in the Angelus Magazine August 2006 Article) means that you are endorsing all the unsubstantiated hype that is on the page. This is abuse, please stop. Yours, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aultaforte (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to propose removing information that you consider poorly sourced, but you may not add sources of questionable authenticity to the article.  Cs32en  01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 253

Hello, Cs32en. You have new messages at Oscroft's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

kurt haskell flight 253

His story should be included in the wiki on Flight 253.

It is not "paranoid rantings" as the discussion page says. You are the conspiracy theorist if you think he and his wife (both victims of the attack) are conspiring make up the story about the "well dressed indian man" or the "indian man in orange led away in handcuffs".

Unless you include his eye witness account then you are not doing Wiki justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.187.126 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video is *reliable* for purposes verifying Chomsky making the statement referenced, or quoted, in article

You have continued to undo my removal of the "unreliable" tag to the YouTube video of Noam Chomsky. At no point in your repeated undo's have you addressed my original comment: 

    "The referenced YouTube video shows Noam Chomsky making 
     the statements in the article. The YouTube video thus 
     *verifies* that Chomsky made the statements in question."

Per the Youtube policy this video is indeed "credited to a reliable source", Chomsky himself. If you have an issue with Chomsky as a reliable source then the topic of contention should be whether Chomsky, and his statements, should not appear in the article.

What aspect of this issue do you not understand?

Deicas (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:SPS for notability issues, WP:RS and WP:Youtube for reliability and authencity issues. What particular policy on Youtube do you think would allow the video to be linked in the article?  Cs32en  14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with WP:N, WP:SPS, WP:RS. and WP:Youtube. Per my comments, above: 1) Chomsky is repeatably cited in Wikipedia and thus meets the Wikipedia criteria for "reliable source" cf. WP:RS; 2) The YouTube video verifies that Chomsky made the statements in question cf. WP:V; QED the citation in question in not unreliable.

I do not understand why you cite WP:N or WP:SPS over the issue at hand. Please explain why they are relevant to the current discussion.

If you are going to continue to claim that the citation in dispute is "unreliable" then please make a *specific* claim so that I can address your concern. Deicas (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is not a recognized expert on the issue, and there is no indication that the statement is notable. Furthermore, although it is likely that Chomsky indeed said what is being recorded on the file submitted to Youtube, authenticity remains an issue.  Cs32en  20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there seem to be three issues in dispute I have, for ease of editing & clarity of analysis, forked the current "article" [[2]] into three new items on your talk page:
1) Chomsky is not a recognized expert on acts of malfeasance by the US government?
2) Chomsky's statements in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc are not notable
3) The authenticity of the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc video of Noam Chomsky is in question
Deicas (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is not a recognized expert on acts of malfeasance by the US government

You User:Cs32en write on [talk page regarding the Chomsky citation in question:

Chomsky is not a recognized expert on the issue...

Please specify what you mean by "the issue".

As I read section in question, "the issue" Chomsky is quoted/cited on is malfeasance by the US government.

My reading of Wikipedia is that, for Wikipedia's purposes, Chomsky is a "leading critic of US foreign policy" and, thus, should be treated as a [WP:RS|reliable source].

Do you disagree that Wikipedia considers Chomsky a [WP:RS]? If so please specify your reasoning.

Deicas (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky's statements in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc are not notable

You (User:Cs32en) write on | your talk page regarding the Chomsky citation in question:

there is no indication that the statement is notable

Per | the article under discussion Chomsky states "that for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt". This is Chomsky saying that US Government complicity in the 9/11 attacks would be foolish. This is a statement on the plausibility of 9/11 conspiracy theories. How could this not be notable in the context of | the article?

Assuming that your reference to "notable" is per WP:NOTE; WP:NOTE states "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article"; please explain your invocation of WP:NOTE with regard to a citation.

Deicas (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The authenticity of the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc video of Noam Chomsky is in question

You (User:Cs32en) write on | your talk page regarding the Chomsky citation in question:

authenticity [regarding the video in question] remains an issue

Your use of the passive voice here is unhelpful. Please specify *who* questions the authenticity of video and *what* evidence they cite to support their view.

The video has been available on YouTube for >2ys., rated >2,000 times, and viewed >260,000 times. Given this viewablity duration & viewership; please explain the lack of a takedown notice, or similiar if there is evidence that the video is inauthentic?

Deicas (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not about what you or I think about the video, it's about Wikipedia policy. I personally think that Chomsky has said what is being shown in the video. It's best to continue this discussion on the WP:V/N noticeboard.  Cs32en  06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Chapman again

Talk before reverting first, you can not push your opinion without talking first. You stated and I qoute Restoring sourced information on the base's security director. There are multiple reliable sources for this. Name them please....Name them. In fact you cann't, there is only one source, if you find any other it's only just a copy-paste of the original article that mentioned him. There has been only ONE source that mentions his death. Only ONE. Also with your inclusion of him into the table of casualties we have now nine dead, ten if you include the bomber, isn't that now Synthesis on your part?....Except for one news article no one else mentioned his death in the days leading after the attack. If you are sure he died than add him but change the number of dead from 8 to 9, 9 to 10 if you include the bomber. But you cann't do that cann't you since everyone is reporting only eight people died, nine if you include the bomber. No synthesis here. And if you try to warn me again of edit warring hear this, I did not revert you the first time around but added new information, you were the one who reverted me, I will be reverting you the first time now, if you revert me than it would be your second time and I would be within my rights to warn you. No synthesis here, no multiple reliable sources, only one source and he has not been mentioned anywhere after that. Only one source mentions him.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that multiple sources exist. One source, however, is sufficient. I will not spend my time formatting refs for a particular piece of information just because you would want me to do so. The death of the deputy chief of the Kabul CIA station has not been confirmed, so there is no reason to change the overall death count. Please read WP:EDITWAR closely, and note that the burden of proof in on the editor who wants to include information, like your assertion that the death of the base's security chief would not have been mentioned after ABC reported it.  Cs32en  17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it up, there is no multiple sources, unlike you I spent my time looking for additional source on Arghawan tehre are no other sources except for that one. I will be sourcing my original research with a valid source that is up to date, read it before reverting please. By the way you yourself put the source there. In the source the backgrounds of all seven CIA guys is laid out, no mention of Arghawan. Read it. [3]UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the burden of proof is on my side since nobody mentioned him after ABC.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reverting you a second time now, your revert will be the third. Thus you violate the 3 revert rule, also I am telling you that I am rising the issue at the administrator noticebord.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I reverted you again, my second time, still not my third. I also added two more refs that back up my original research that there was no security chief killed.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No synthesis in my last edit, you still have not provided more than one source for your edit, I provided three, and just so you know, I reported you.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cs32en&oldid=336645100"