User talk:Factchecker atyourservice

Hello, and welcome!

If you post a comment here, I will reply here to keep things simple.

Fascism

I am referring to fascists in power. I cannot find anyone who says that fascist government was not right-wing. Sternhell thought that fascist ideology developed from left-wing thought but that they moved to the Right once in power. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Articulocity, Factchecker? You talkin' bout me? Have you studied my typos at all. ;) --FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for all I know you could have a harelip IRL. I am talking about pristine word usage. The best word I can think of is, congratulations. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind your questions. I believe that Wikipedia is an experiment in a kind of community and a kind of process. Both involve certain policies, the one inviolable one, NPOV, being central, and the principle that anyone can edit any page any time (Jimbo's declaration of principles has a slightly more circumspect and nuanced formulation), made possible by wiki technology. I believe that this basic structure creates endemic problems or challenges, like the ones faced when editing the Sarah Palin article prior to the election: what happens when people with passionately held and antagonistic beliefs clash? the wiki technology means that people must cooperate, and as in any system where people must cooperate, this means that there are many situations where none gets what they want, but everyone gets something they can live with. I earnestly believe that people acting in good faith, who earnestly comply with the core content policies of NPOV, V, and NOR, can collaborate to write very good articles. But it can take a lot of time and effort. Some consider that a failing, I consider it the cost of doing business, and well worth it.

I think there are other problems that arise from the culture of Wikipedia and need to be addressed. I think that because this started on the internet, the community has long been dominated by white men working in IT or applied sciences. There is nothing wrong with that, but such people have a communication and interaction style that has made Wikipedia unhospitable to others, especially some women and minorities. I think as Wikipedia grows we must make conscious efforts to recruit a more diverse group of editors. If we can do this, this problem will be solved.

I think another weakness is a lack of another kind of diversity - not enough editors in the social sciences, humanities, or fine arts. Consequently, there are fewer articles on these topics, and they either are not good, or are good thanks to the effort of one or two editors.

I wish we could think of policies or strategies to address these two weaknesses but I do not think they are intrinsic or fundamental to the project.

I do think that the creation of ArbCom created the seed of a problem, by which I mean the development of some centralized authority, or hierarchy. I think these two things are anathema to Wikipedia. With regard to the policy council, my point was not that Wikipedia is perfect and there are no problems - there are problems, I have just mentioned two, and we need to address them. I just do not believe that ArbCom had the authority to create the council, and that any council should be created by the community, either with members who are elected 9like ArbCom iself0 or with an open membership (like the way anyone can watch and work on improving any policy).

In fact, I think the biggst problem facing Wikipedia is the creep of hierarchy (service awards are one seemingly silly example; that some administrators believe they should be held to higher standards of behavior in return for more prestige or authority is another). I think we need administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards, and ArbCom, and oversight - but I think the greatest threat to Wikipedia is that these people may use their technological powers in non-transparent ways, and abuse them i.e. use technological powers to seek social power, power over people. I think there is a real risk of people with oversight abilities to out anonymous wikipedians and to harass them off-wiki. I think these are serious problems that definitely need to be addressed.

This kind of sums it up. I wrote two essays on wiki-process that further explain my views (of course, other editors contributed). They are the first two, here. Have I answered your question? If not, please let me know. I would be happy to answer any other questions you have. I am sorry my statement at the RfC was unclear and if you feel, based on what i wrote here, I could clarify it, I would be in your debt if you would show me how. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your new question, you have to answer a question: if someone does not agree with Wikipedia's principles, why would they want to come here? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we just disagree. My answer is simple: Wikipedia is not the only game in town. Aside from Conservapedia there is Encyclopedia Brittanica. If you want to speak in metaphors, Wikipedia is not a country you have to live in, no University Physics course is ever going to force you to read Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is like a game. If someone went to an ice hockey game and said "It's okay but I would much prefer they play with a bouncing ball on wood rather than a hard disk on ice," I would say "Well, don't keepo coming to ice hockey games, go to a basketball game!!" I would never let that person screw around with the rules of ice hockey!!

Wikipedia will never be the only gam in town. it is the only game in town only to lazy people who do not wish to take the effort to explore the other games. And this is tied up with what is wrong in Western education. No encyclopedia is perfect. There are flaws in encyclopedia Brittanica. There are flaws in Wikipedia. We need schools that can teach students how to assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of all sources of knowledge. Anyone who comes to Wikipedia thinking it is "the truth" or even thinking that all articles really will present a good account of all different views is just a mark, a sucker, a dope, a victim waiting to be hustled. No information source will ever be perfect. Wikipedia has some advantages over brittanica, Brittanica has some advantages over Wikipedia, and if you know how each encyclopedia is written, and by whom, and guided by which policies, then you can assess them critically and not be conned. I am speaking of the attitude of the reader of an encyclopedia article.

If you wish to write for an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the only game in town, you can look for a job with Encyclopedia Brittanica. You may find that they won't hire you. But this does not make WP the only game in town, it just means it may seem easier to edit than Encyclopedia Brittanica. Now come the policies. You may not have to sit through a job interview as you would with EB, but to be a success at WP you need to learn the policies and follow them. I think this is reasonable.

People are free to create their own competing encyclopedias. Others have tried and failed. But there is simply no serious barier to you if you want to write your own encyclopedia on the web. If you think Wikipedia is the only game in town, I can only infer that you do not think anyone would read your encyclopedia. But please do not blame Wikipedia. In fact, I would say that it is Wikipedia's policies (esp. NPOV, V and NOR) that give it the edge over othe encyclopedias using Wiki technology. So no offence but it seems kind of disengenuous if you are saying you want to edit Wikipedia because people read it, but you do not believe in the policies or principles.

If you have a fundamental problem with the polciies and principles, register a domain name and start your own encyclopedia using wiki technology and your own policies, and see if people join you. If your policies and principles are better than WPs, people will start to catch on. The cost will not be very high to maintain and if you give it a few years it may begin to compete with Wikipedia.

But if people prefer Wikipedia, why not open your mind as to the wisdom of th principles and policies? Of course this does not mean that Wikipedia is perfect. You know, some people still debate whether the designated hitter rule in baseball was a good idea. You can always propose a new policy and see if people support it. But it sounds very strange if you insist that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, and you do not believe in its policies, and you haven't proposed a new policy for people to vote on. You can't have everything. Am i misunderstanding your position? You have not really explained to me what about my explanation of why I like Wikipedia you find wrong. Maybe I am completely off-base and if so i apologize, but so far you have just hinted that you do not believe in Wikipedia and you don't say why. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, my views are well-developed because I have been here a long time. But if it helps any, I am a skeptic too. To be clear: I am not at all convinced Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia, or that it ever will be. I think it does have some advantages over Brittanica especially because I do have an idea about how their articles are written, I guess i would have to say I am askeptic aout Brittanica too!! But I am definitely a skeptic about Wikipedia. I was initially drawn to it because I anted to make sure that the few articles on topics I really care about aren't wrong. BUT: I do "get" the idea behind it (the principles and stuff I articulated above) and I think that it could work. I think it is an experiment. I think my being an editor (and reading any article) is a gamble. it may not pay off. It may be that in five years it collapses in on itself, an on-line data-base high school students use to cheat, like Cliff Notes, but good for little else. I have no idea. But I think that the principles, as I understand them are interesting enough that (1) I am willing o make a little gamble that maybe it really will work and (2) I am enough of a betting man to be glad to see one encyclopedia out there that is written and edited on completely different principles than any other. This paragraph is the most honest expression o why I stick around. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't judge you. But I would say I am the guy who will play hockey, not at all convinced I will be much good at it, or that my team will win. But even if my team loses I am not going to tell everyone else they should be playing basket-ball! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are in the same ball-park now. Perhaps a better metaphor would come from a casino - If I decide to play poker, I want to win. If I loose I may go over to the blackjack table, but I won't try to get the people at the poker table to change the rules of poker. The point is: I do not think one has to be convinced Wikipedia will work, to "play by the rules." I think when one contributes to Wikipedia the gamble is precisely this: that following these particular rules we can come up with a better encyclopedia than those that follow different rules. I am not convinced Wikipedia will be better than Brittanica, but I am glad that there exists this other encyclopedia that is daringly trying to build itself with very different rules than EB's. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa - reply

How did you know? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He certainly is an interesting character. Read this: Talk:Fascism/Archive 24#Horowitz and Bale quotes. It's one of my favourites. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: User_talk:Gwen_Gale#odd. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do...

Hope you're doing well, too. Coincidentally, I was thinking of you just the other day when things started percolating on this health care topic at Palin, recalling that you shined some sanity and balance on similar subjects in the past. I actually ignored her comment initially, dismissing it as yet another Palinism (for lack of a better term). "Death panels?" C'mon! Since then, the media has turned that into a rally cry for opposition to the reform bill. It's a mess... there's nothing but intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the debate. We need leadership that outlines, in simple bullet format and in an honest way, what the changes mean to Americans. My only hope is that no one breaks my government-administered, single-payer health care system which I have enjoyed for the past 35 years! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

e-mail

Well, as you may know, the other user has to have set his or her preferences to allow for an e-mail to be sent/receeived. Also, you have to have your preferences set to allow e-mails. If both conditions are met, on the left side menu there ought to be an option to e-mail this user. I am not the best person to ask as I seldom e-mail users and do not have my own e-mail setting enabled. So if in some design change they moved the link, I won't know about it. But the fact is, if you look carefully enough at a person's user page you should see a link for e-mailing the user .... if you do not consider the possibility that the person does not have his or her link enabled. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Copwatch

Hey Factchecker, I replied to your note on my talk. Peace, delldot ∇. 04:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks...

And great to hear from you again, my friend! Hope all is well. Fcreid (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, nice to hear from you. Hope you're enjoying a bright new year! Fcreid (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your topic heading, pretty much always!

Kidding (sort of). But...

Hi there, I have been quite inactive for some time but logged in to make a single, highly obscure edit, and saw your message. I can sympathize with what you describe but want to stress that this sounds like typical personal conflicts which inevitably arise in a setting such as Wikipedia for a variety of good and silly reasons and combinations thereof. I would guess that many users have felt similarly. While I can't devote the time to do much to help you, I'd say the best advice is to take a step back a bit, perhaps edit a different type of article, and take the initiative in avoiding conflict as the primary means of seeking compromise. The result of such an approach on the large scale tends to be bureaucratic, slow, and often wrong, but it is what it is given the circumstances which attend an online user-edited enyclopedia. If you are still frustrated by this issue, I'd recommend talking about it on a Wiki message board, talking to an admin, or perhaps shooting a message to the guy whose comment appears just before your own on this page, Fcreid. He is wise in the ways of getting along with other Wikipedians, and may have a sage word or two for you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after posting this same message on numerous locations around Wikipedia including Jimbo's talk page, B9 was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for refusing to accept consensus and work with other editors. There had already been a month long RFC on the subject, which B9 refused to participate in until the decision was reached that without his cooperation the only option option left was to pursue a full site ban. Thanks for trying though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Singular flags are generally deprecated on Wikipedia as they over-emphasize nationality without adding any information. I have therefore undone your restoration of the flag on the Greek protests article. It took a bit of searching as you didn't mention in the edit summary that you had restored it. --John (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it was me? If so, it was an accident. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. It was just an accidental by-product of restoring a previous version of the infobox. Sorry bout that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I thought it must be something like that. --John (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well met

I like what you are are doing, not that I am important. I might need your advice at some stage, because I am on a similar crusade. However, I see that you are up to your eyeballs in Greeks, so I will leave you to it for now. pietopper (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine what led you to think I'd be able to help, but I am happy to try, or at least point you to someone who might be better at it. However, be warned that I am only sporadically active and have gone months or years without checking my Talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest post on Talk:Michele Bachmann missing

I saw your latest post on Talk:Michele Bachmann in my watchlist, but when I went to the page to respond, I didn't see your post and searching for it was unsuccessful. Can you see it there? Drrll (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michelle Bachmann. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

The disruptive editor has been blocked for a week.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I felt a pang of guilt for willfully violating 1RR and reported myself to the admin too in case he wishes to take action. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No.

Your self claimed lack of comprehension, is not an excuse nor an invitation to restore your annoying comments at my talk page. Stop restoring your comments there once I've deleted them. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My English reading comprehension is just fine. What I'm trying to get across to you is that yours is fairly limited, and at the very least you should not be using the "Advanced English" userbox. You've repeatedly failed to understand clear English obviously supporting article text, and have wrongfully reverted, removed, or tagged article text due to your lack of understanding. Further, as I mentioned in the talk page comments that you keep deleting while complaining they are "insults", when you actually add text to an article it is always broken English — not just grammatically incorrect, but broken English.

Your recent summary reads: "I am neither discussing nor negotiating. I do not mind if th author is not able to understand, but it is quite simple: I do find that sort of comments as rude insults which solely deserve to be deleted."

Besides providing a further example of your English problems, this summary seems to reflect your unproductive attitude towards WP. "I do not mind if th author is not able to understand". That's great that it doesn't bother you, but it is not your prerogative to go around mangling WP articles simply because your English skills are limited yet you still insist on editing English WP. Why not try Spanish WP? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I still do not matter at all if all this has to do with your lack of comprehension or with your ability to trim down and decontextualize or with a common delirium. It will suffice here to mention that for a reasonable reader it would be enough clear that I was NOT claiming that I do not mind if people understand my edits at wikipedia. But then, for a reasonable reader it would be clear my point is: Whether YOU (Factchecker) are able or not able to understand that your recent comments are not welcome at my talk page, at any rate your recent comments will be deleted because I do find that sort of comments to be rude insults which solely deserve to be deleted. If YOU (Factcchecker) are still not able to understand this simple point, at any rate you are still NOT invited to restore your comments at my talk page NOR to abusively edit my user page, so you will be automatically reverted. I do neither really matter nor want to discuss your lack or excess of comprehension, due pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You [redacted] and have limited English ability and should not be editing English Wikipedia. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's your own talk page, no personal attacks. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy. Either find an admin to sanction me or mind your own business. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why bother with sanctions when a simple reminder will do? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm an admin! (I came here because I'm watch metal.lunchbox's talk page). Metal.lunchbox has kindly reminded you of our policy requiring no personal attacks. The reminder was fully appropriate, as your statement was unequivocally a personal attack. As long as you don't repeat that, no sanctions will be forthcoming. Should anyone notice any more personal attacks coming from this user, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Two other things, Factchecker. First, if someone deletes your comment from their talk page, then restoring it is edit warring. Our userpage policy very clearly says that you can delete almost anything from your own user talk page, and that doing so is acknowledgment that the message was read. While many editors use archiving, it is not mandatory, and, even if archiving is set up, an editor can feel free to pick and choose what is archived. The comments remain in the editing history. Second, you should never be editing another user's user page, unless you're reverting vandalism. Period. Userboxes are self-created things, and no one else can modify them. It was even recently established that userboxes can be a complete lie (an editor was using a userbox indicating over 75,000 edits, when they had less than 500, and it was firmly established that this cannot be removed by other editors). So, really, lets all get back to editing the encyclopedia and leave the dramaz behind. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michele Bachmann. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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 edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. You've been warned about edit warring on this page before. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

should we have controversy in the lede?

do you object to the specific text, or is it your opinion no controversy belongs in the lede of the krugman article? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My objections were that the material as written didn't summarize the relevant content from the article body, but was instead a much sharper claim than appeared below which was only sourced to two pieces whose only appearance was in the lead. For a claim like that to be in the lead, it would have to be the prevaling theme of what was below, instead of something cherry-picked to be more dramatic. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

can you think of any we could include in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; could you rephrase your question? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

can you think of any krugman controversy we could include in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to look at the article. Why do you ask? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

because you deleted the last controversy in the lede. if it is your opinion there is no reason we should have controversy in the lede, i can understand that as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. I removed the material for the reasons stated just above. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

the discussion thread on the page is quite long with many attempts to add any controversy to the lede, each rejected. i suggest the article is the worse for not following guidelines for including notable controversy. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to already include substantial notable controversy. This doesn't mean that we can just ignore WP policies in general in an effort to include controversy in the lead, ASAP, at any cost. Whatever goes in the lead needs to conform to policy, as well. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

good point. if so much of the article is controversy, why is none in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak to the edits I've personally reverted, which were objectionable for reasons already stated. As I said, the lead needs to observe policy, too. My suggestion would be to work towards a carefully fashioned lede that neither misrepresents nor overstates the criticism, as the recent edit did. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

then perhaps you have over corrected. in a good faith edit, you went from too much one way to zero the other way. instead of too much, we have none, which could be considered worse. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First, that's not true. What I've currently reverted to is a rather generic summary (by an experienced user other than myself) that doesn't say much, but also doesn't say too much, as it previously did, which was worse. It clearly indicates to the reader that there is going to be controversy discussed below. The treatment below is fairly thorough.

Second, what's there now is simply the WP:WRONG version while the issue is being discussed. I don't think it would be wise in the meantime to promote a free-for-all of individual editors each taking a stab at making an edit that will meet all objections.

Third, to the extent you think my edit was not the lesser of two evils, I'd disagree and say that potential source misrepresentation in the lead, combined with a weight problem in the lead, was clearly worse than the current WP:WRONG alternative, which at worst is merely a weight problem in the lead. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

the age of the article should be an indicator sufficient time has passed for vetting of controversies for the lede. the fact that not one single controversy about a man described as the most controversial economist has been allowed to stand in the lede is balderdash. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a course of action, or complaining about Wikipedia? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Some fairly drastic action taken [1]. The final paragraph of the intro has gone from having a fairly anemic close (which made the paragraph as a whole read rather like "Krugman says he's a liberal; his critics seem to agree") to containing a catalogue of blistering complaints against the guy. My edit will probably be reverted with extreme prejudice either by Freeloader or Vision Thing, neither of whom have shown much ability to contribute constructively on the level of facts, much less with proper diction, grammar or sourcing on this subject. Needless to say, I consider them only obstructive at this point. Technically, what I've supplied is a violation you might be concerned about, since it cites sources (and mentions a sentiment or two) not found in the Criticism section. However, in the spirit of balance, I think I've at least taken a step in the right direction. I do believe some treatment of controversy in the lead is owed to those readers who are (somehow) unacquainted with Krugman, considering that Krugman owes much of his notability to choosing controversy (but IMHO, is also right almost all the time, unlike many of his critics.) In any case, I request your diligent attention, and I thank you for your helpful comments on the discussion so far. Yakushima (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1RR notice: Planned Parenthood

I see you have reverted twice in less than 24hrs at Planned Parenthood. The article is under 1RR sanctions, so you will want to revert yourself to avoid being blocked. Don't get blocked! Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll wait an hour or so for you (Fact) to self-revert. If you don't, I'll report. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just coming over to remind you of the same thing. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for the notices. I forgot about 1RR and really have not run into it in the past. However I was previously aware of it being on that page so I have no good excuse. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already been reverted by another user, so I assume the issue is moot? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice timing on that self-revert - I was on my way to the block button. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Waiting out the 1RR period is not a defense against blocking -- indeed, it indicates an intent to continue edit warring, and can lead to blocks just as easily. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension

About this comment you leave at my talk page:

1. The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months[2].

2. After the last edits at Margaret Sanger article, any discussion about that particular phrase is superflous.

3. At any rate, it seems you are still unable to read and comprehend good enough my warnings: you are not welcomed to come with your hostile comments at my talk page. I have to wonder if you are also unable to keep absolutely away from my user and talk page after this advice. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is mostly incoherent gibberish—you are seeming more and more like EN-3 or EN-2. You seem to have erroneously assumed that the statement was a statement of opinion merely because the author used a first-person pronoun in the same sentence; this is just stupid reasoning on your part. But suffice it to say that even if the author was presenting the claim as opinion, which she clearly was not, the appropriate thing would have been to attribute the statement, not delete it. Furthermore, any editor is allowed to comment on another editor's talk page regarding the substance of a content dispute. And, my comment was perfectly civil; I just didn't go out of my way to be friendly. Given your own tendency to react in a hostile fashion to any and all legitimate criticism, I'd say you don't rate friendly treatment. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am enough able to understand that your comments at my talk page and here, always (dis)qualifying my reading comprehension and referring in rude words against me, it has nothing to do with an attempt to resolve any content dispute, but your comments are solely personal attacks made by you in order to eliminate your opponent by any means. Your last self-confessed and evident rude and hostile comment, now bad rating not only my intelligence and my linguistic skills but also my simpathy and friendliness, it is just another example of your manners. So, still you are not welcomed to stalk and attack me although you are unable to understand my warnings. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Listen, pal, the fact that you've revealed you knew the source said exactly what the material said just means your edit summary ("the source does not say that") was dishonest, rather than merely misguided. And you are entirely unreceptive to criticism, regardless of whether it is presented constructively or not, bristling at every comment while ignoring its substance and launching into accusations of slander and cruel intention. So long as you're lecturing me, examine your own motives. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exposing your own words, for any reader would be enough clear that for you: I am a dishonest stupid, unable to comprehend English and who deserves not friendliness but hostility. So, now I have not any need nor any motive to continue this "chat". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you don't think anything I've said suggests any need to modify your editing habits? Is this all malicious slander, then? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do see things that you've said that say you need to changing your editing habits, Factchecker. In full disclosure, ClaudioSantos asked me to look at this comment, but it's exactly the same sort of personal attack I warned you about before. You could have said everything you said civilly and without actually talking about ClaudioSantos's alleged abilities. You could have said, "Actually, that's exactly what the source says, please check again" and "Just because it uses first person in the line before, doesn't mean the line after is the author's opinion." And if the two of you didn't agree, you should take the issue to WP:RSN or open an RfC. This is a final warning: stop harassing CS, stop making comments about xyr reading abilities, stop describing xyr writing as "incoherent gibberish" (because, I have to say, I have no problem understanding anything CS says in the opening post here--the grammar is imperfect, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to understand). Your comment on CS's talk page was not "perfectly civil." WP:CIVIL isn't a suggestion, nor is WP:NPA--both are policies, the violation of which can lead to a loss of editing privileges. Consider this a final warning--if you can't place nice, you can't play here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If WP:NPA is a defense against having anyone complain when you edit dishonestly, attempt to game the rules when you understand the content and applicable policy (while simply messing things up willy-nilly when you don't), without any investigation as to whether another editor is raising a legitimate concern and without any effort to scrutinize one's own edits—resorting to hostile filibustering and complaints of persecution when the S hits the fan—then the community gets what it deserves. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't criticize CS's edits. I'm saying you can't use that criticism as an excuse to attack CS's English ability, reading comprehension, or overall morality. The dictum is old but sound: "Comment on edits, not editors". That's all you need to do to avoid this problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why I can't comment on his reading comprehension when it's clearly a significant problem with his warlike editing. He has repeatedly removed content with the claim that it is not directly supported by the source, or simply not in the source at all, when in fact the material was clearly and obviously there.

Incidentally, it wasn't until his comments today that I imagined that "not in the source" is sometimes code for some other reason that he'd rather not reveal. And it is quite obviously necessary to comment on an editor's behavior when it is the editor's behavior, and not an individual edit, that is the problem. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If CS's behavior is a problem, open up a WQA, or, if it's really a serious issue that others have also had problems with, an RfCU. Just like with article content, where we have dispute resolution to handle disputes, we have processes in place to handle problematic editors. Do they work all of the time? Of course not. But they at least have a chance of working, while hurling insults on talk pages is guaranteed to get nowhere (other than you ending up blocked yourself). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, on ANI and elsewhere

I suggest you cease engaging ClaudioSantos, as well as cease participating in the discussion regarding him on ANI. Your points have been made; further responses will only result in Moar Dramah and possible sanctions. You are, unfortunately, merely stirring the pot. Please allow the other editors, who have a less problematic history with ClaudioSantos, to decide this. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing myself. Sorry. But I do think that's the best way forward... rather than just letting a ban grow, encourage some advice-seeking that might actually push things in a better direction. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point; I also see ClaudioSantos not actually interested in, or listening to, concerns about this. IMO if he is off the topics he has strong feelings about, we may be able to guide him into better editing habits, better interaction with others. On the topics he has strong feelings about, he's too busy edit warring and defending the rightness of his edits to listen to anything else. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Test

[[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|Centrify]][[User Talk:Factchecker_atyourservice|(talk)]][[Contributions:Factchecker_atyourservice|(contribs)]] (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify(talk)(contribs) 21:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify(talk)(contribs) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Centrify (f/k/a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Yep "out" was missing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you would not mind (although if I had thought you were logged on currently, I would have dropped a note at your talk). And I didn't want to leave any opportunity for things to get derailed by someone deciding to discuss a typo on the Talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Noleander talkback

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

Health as human right

For the US and EU:

In the US: The Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

   Employment, with a living wage,
   Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
   Housing,
   Medical care,
   Education, and,
   Social security

In the EU: UN declaration of human rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

See talk page of...

Occupy Wall Street. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I was already attempting to engage you in discussion when I posted to your talk page in an effort to get you to pay attention to the article talk page, I was already aware of, and looking at, the article talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

occupy wall street journal

In reference to this edit: 21:09, 16 October 2011‎ Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)‎ (117,504 bytes) (→Demands and goals: "Occupied Wall Street Journal" seems to have a scant relation to the protests; more like an attempt at self-promotion by the author)

Hi, I noticed you deleted the photo of 'The Occupied Wall Street Journal' and its publisher . Though I can see your point of self promotion by the author there is no mention at all of the newspaper 'The Occupied Wall Street journal I believe it would be important to mention that the newspaper exists and that it is a result of the movement. thanks, 66.108.1.237 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a place for self-promotion by anyone and everyone who would like to be associated with a topic that has a WP article about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street reference

The Epoch Times reference I added to the Occupy Wall Street article has more reliability than the Huffington Post reference in the article, which is basically a blog. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the revised reference, with web link: Stieber, Zack (October 7, 2011.) "Media-Savvy Protesters Join New Era of Unrest." The Epoch Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

HuffPo is partisan, but mainstream. Epoch Times is not mainstream and has faced significant concerns about its credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion occurring for redirects to the Occupy Wall Street article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding the redirecting of several other "Occupy" articles to the article, Occupy Wall Street occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Since you've significantly contributed to the Occupy Wall Street article, this matter may be of interest to you. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice. You have new messages at Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

File:PNHP poster.jpg

For your patience with me

I am sorry I implied that you may have been acting improperly. It is just because Occupy Wall Street is politically contentious and fast-moving. I hope you will forgive me. Please accept this single payer health care poster about the United States National Health Care Act by Physicians for a National Health Program as a token of appreciation for the hard work you have been doing on trying to keep articles neutral. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've doubled down on this accusation, in retrospect, it appears this apology was not especially sincere. Let me also suggest that whenever you're feeling like extending an olive branch to another editor, or want to give someone an "award" for some other reason, it might be preferable not to choose something with a very politically charged message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was sincere at the time, but your refusal to state specific objections in lieu of your vague accusations of undue weight and insistence that I read sources for you and pull out quotes from each changed my mind. Please remove it from your user page. Dualus (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Man, you guys are cute when you bicker.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Been reading your talk page comments...

You have a keen sense of humor! LOL! I like the way it helps defuse situations. (Load a crap! LOL)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that sometimes a good joke can give editors who are at odds with each other all the chance they need to moderate their own behavior instead of arguing about each other. Thus, I have spent several years trying to come up with a good joke. I'll keep you posted! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: FWIW

Is there a specific discussion you think I have not sufficiently participated in? Dualus (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Progressive_stack

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Progressive_stack User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What we have now is a copy of text from the blog quoted with a POV headline. I think the original blog is probably the better reference. There is no serious question that the progressive stack was used and the reasons for its use. That is factual information, the wisdom or effectiveness of its use is opinion, and usually attached to a polarized point of view. One way or another the information is coming from a blog, although possibly one we can use, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Republishing by Fox Nation is just fact laundering. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:99 Percent Declaration is being worked on by your favourite person after 99 Percent Declaration was replaced with a redirect. Not sure talk pages should be used that way, and in most cases, it seems like that type of workspace would be moved to a user subpage. It wouldn't be done in the main talk space. --LauraHale (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I knew...

that when I looked over your talk page I'd find block warnings, maybe a block or two, warnings about interactions with specific editors, references to Moar Dramah, and the like. I must say tho, the appearance of so many of them, including significant actions, warnings and an ANI thread, all within less than the past 90 days, went beyond my expectations. You rock, dude! David in DC (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there an ANI thread about me? I certainly didn't notice.

Have you ever met a long-standing editor who's never been warned over a content dispute?

Have you bothered to take a look at the "specific editor" who I was asked to disengage from? He's got a fan club bigger than the NY Yankees.

Have you bothered to look at the repeated block warning Dualus earned, and did you notice that I charitably refrained from reporting him back to an admin after he edit-warred on at least 5 separate occasions since the warning, on the exact material he was warned about? And did you notice that he resorted to claims of conspiracy against multiple editors within about 24 hours of getting involved in his First Big Content Dispute?

Have you noticed that Dualus has on at least one occasion lied about a previous discussion in an effort to mislead other editors about one of the content disputes we're involved in?

Most importantly, did you come here to do anything other than make snide and pointless comments? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here to make snide comments. That you find them pointless is telling. Happy editing, my brother. David in DC (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem like an intelligent person with reasonable and sincere motivations. It's been an absolute pleasure interacting with you. Best, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Centrify, there was no reason to delete the trademark information on Occupy Wall Street. KSRolph (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug in Welcome to Wikipedia?

Factchecker: I put a comment below yours on User_talk:KSRolph and somehow my name replaced yours in the signature to {{Welcome-to-Wikipedia|Factchecker_atyourservice}} I tried a number of fixes, but the change remained. Is there a bug? Should we report it somewhere?--Nowa (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If they are mentioned in the source and are used as a source...

They can be mentioned in the article. This isn't a stretch by any means.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinychat?

Do you think it might be helpful to try to communicate via Tinychat? Please let me know on my talk page. Dualus (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to communicate with you via any means that isn't fully logged and recorded by WP servers, so let's stick to talk pages. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

He left the same invitation on my talk page. I don't like "behind closed doors" methods either. Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

International human rights instruments

FYI,

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_edit-warring

 Chzz  ►  21:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. You've made the "difficult block". Now why the hell didn't you also make the "easy block"? Just trying to be contrarian? FYI, if I hadn't given User:Dualus about 20 second chances to come around to something resembling the expected collaborative approach, and had instead simply documented his edit-warring and reported him, there would have been no war in the first place. I also abstained from reverting him for valid reasons on dozens of occasions and gave the opportunity for him to self-revert, attempt to reach discussion, understand policy—hell, anything other than the OR-soapbox he's been standing on for the past several weeks. I guess exhibiting all that patience was a mistake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

*grin* Oh, believe me, I feel your pain. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not always so good at reading between the lines. Are you saying that I've exhausted your patience in the same way (or to the same extent) that Dualus exhausted mine? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stalker) My stab in the dark is that Sarek was agreeing that "WikiJustice" can be capricious and unfair. Another reason to be indifferent, I suppose. But FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the POV you stated. Take this for example. How to remove the soapbox this user stands on? Hmmmm... or should I be indifferent and not even ask that question, knowing that eventually it will be sorted out? Jesanj (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus got blocked 21 minutes after Factchecker, and for the same time period. Dualus should have been given a longer timeout than Factchkr, IMO. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not you at all. I've been blocked twice for edit warring with someone who finally got a three-month block for disruptive editing. (I was thinking of something else when I posted, but that gets the point across better.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How long are you blocked? We need you! Gandydancer (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If I were still blocked, I wouldn't be posting here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay invitation

When you return (please return!) I am inviting you to help contribute to a new essay article, WP:PAROOAH Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This essay is about no synthesis. Please feel free to add contributions, edit the article for errors and discuss the (edit: changed to not sound like I mean the essay article as policy) Wikipedia policies and guidelines for Original Research, on the talk page and how we can improve my essay! You may familiarize yourself with essays here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please leave me alone

Please no not contact me on my talk page or ask others to do so. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please leave me alone as well

Inflammatory? The discussion page of an article is the appropriate place to voice criticism of the article and its editors' treatment of the subject. In the case of the OWS entry it is clearly the work of biased supporters and I think anyone with a brain in their head, or who has seen or had to deal with the OWS encampment itself, will agree that "organizational structure" is at best a laughable summation of the chaos that is OWS's attempt at structure. While you may not agree with my criticism, nor my style of presentation, it is mine to give, how I wish. I did not edit the article itself only its discussion. I'll thank you to refrain from interfering with my future wikipedia contributions. In return, I promise to extend you the same courtesy. Thank you. Admiral Bimbo (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as you would know if you had bothered to read the talk page policy page I linked, it is not your prerogative to use a talk page to share your thoughts ridiculing the article topic and the editors who have worked on the article. Don't do it again. You may also wish to read the meta page urging users not to act like a dick. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. I have no interest in reading a "meta page" that urges one to not "act like a dick," if doing so is suggested by someone who is clearly ACTING LIKE A DICK. Blatant hypocrisy isn't going to win you points with me, pal. Same goes for the a$$hole cop who runs three red lights, then pulls over the little old lady for a "rolling stop." Get a grip. There's no benefit in taking yourself too seriously, especially if that pertains to your "power status" as a contributing editor to an open source, all access online encyclopedia. Eyes on the ball, man. Let's just chill out here.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Spare me the nonsensical and insulting rhetoric. Play by the rules and you'll never hear from me again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS question about facebook?

Out of curiosity, do you follow the various OWS pages on facebook? I had a question I wanted to ask about it. 완젬스 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not on facebook and have no desire to start now . . . sorry :-\ Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sighs, well you got me today (on the talk page of OWS) and it really hurt. No doubt, I'm pro-OWS, but I only represent the "privileged college grads" and I do not represent the violent wing of OWS. I'm at a crossroads of where I stand... Are there two factions within OWS? (a legitimate movement to which I belong, and a violent fringe full of rapists and police car soiling whack-jobs) I have been through this "disillusionment" before with Barack Obama. I was an organizer, worked at one of his Orlando call centers, and I helped ferry unmotorized voters from black neighborhoods to the polls, as well as single-handedly registering 150 new Obama voters, who have never voted for the first time in their life. I believe Obama's ideas have succeeded (which is why we voted for him) but his policies have given me doubts. I still think he deserves more time to fix America, but I'm an emotional person which is why I fall so easily into liberal/progressive causes such as OWS.

Here is my point, you say (indirectly) that I should recuse myself from the OWS article altogether because of my strong progessive/liberal bias, but I want to issue the same challenge I gave to Alrez. Look at my 81 edits to the OWS article, and tell me a single one where my love of Wikipedia didn't trump my love of liberal/progressive tactics and policies. Wikipedia is serious business to me, and I want to help Wikipedia and help OWS. If there's any doubt, I always err on the side of Wikipedia because I've been editing for years, and my loyalty always resides with my home here at Wikipedia. It's just that facebook has so many people like Dualus who spin propaganda crap on Lawrence Lessig and the rogue, breakaway faction of the 99% declaration activists. If any advice were to be rendered, it would be to unplug myself from facebook and stick to forming my opinions of OWS from WP:Reliable Sources but the way you said it, was very heavy-handed & non-reflective of the type of editor I pride myself in being. I hope you can think of an article you put in as much blood, sweat, and tears as I have, and then maybe you'll rethink the type of editor I am. 완젬스 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh.. I only suggested you keep some thoughts to yourself. I don't think that even comes close to asking you to "recuse" yourself "altogether".. as I said pretty much everybody has a POV, but we all need the ability to take a step back from our POV at any time, and at times each of us may need to be reminded of that need by others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Miss you, man

Just saying hi. (and a wink, my brother, and a wink). Admiral Bimbo (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS and Google

hi thanks for pointing out the error i made. i got confused about something i had heard and didnt find the right source for it - letting me know why you removed it is appreciated and people like you make this a better place! Bouket (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS Revert

I DID discuss in talk. I also added sources, including an exact quote from the Rachel Maddow Show and independent sources discussing smashed computers. I even went so far as to correct the exact wording for correctness. I am being true and accurate. Your failure to read both shows YOUR issue with content, not mine. I revert the whole package again as your vandalism. You are the one who needs to stop warring. Trackinfo (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Woops; my bad for missing that you did finally decide to discuss it. None of what you said, though, justifies the text having been in there in the first place. Taking a source that points out cops took the camp apart with sawzalls is not even remotely the same neighborhood as "police making a deliberate attempt to damage items", which is very POV-pushy and, as you admit, not supported by the source. Also not sure what to make of your accusations about using multiple names or "skirting the intent of WP:SOCK". I post under one name and clearly indicate the name I used to post under. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1RRPPPDODC

You asked that users who notice you committing more than one content reversion at a single page in a single day report you to an admin. I'm not going to do that, but - 22:10, 30 November 2011‎, 14:48, 1 December 2011‎. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

03:08, 8 December 2011‎, 13:14, 7 December 2011‎. Hipocrite (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's worthy of asking me to be blocked, go right ahead. That's the point of putting that on my userpage, albeit in the hopes that editors would only indulge if they felt concern over an edit-war brewing. (Note also that I only invite users to report me, whereas I request that an admin receiving a report go ahead and block me.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS criticism section dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute (yes I know you are only slightly involved but hope you will stop by). Cheers! B^e——C_ritical 06:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

99% declaration AFD

Feel free to weigh in on the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination).--Amadscientist (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:List of policies#Why is there no SEARCH feature covering pages listed here?

The phrase you're looking for is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". It's part of WP:V and has a specific link using WP:REDFLAG.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security

I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Hello User:Factchecker atyourservice. Some time ago I made a suggestion for this project.[3] A formal proposal has been made at the project council proposal page. If you are interested you may add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I mention you in passing here, do please come along and have a say. Penyulap _talk 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Occupy Wall Street

An article that you have been involved in editing, Occupy Wall Street , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

N.B. OWS

That seems like a fair (if perhaps somewhat extreme) measure. A lot of, how to put it, DIY-type sites are probably not up to date on their security credentials, and I think it's really unlikely that the site is a scam or something. I have no stake in the site, and had never seen it until it was posted there. My only objection was that this was a dialogue between two other editors, a query and a response, that could eventually go to help the article, and as such it shouldn't be removed (as nothing short of vandalism, abuse, spam, and wide digressions should be removed from talk pages, IMO). I hope the character limit allowed to edit summaries didn't make my edit summary sound gruff or anything. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Factchecker atyourservice: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street Revert Issue

Before I report you for edit warring, I recommend that you read the summaries I've provided for my edits. The image of the ballerina and the bull is a copyrighted image that came from Adbusters.org, and is by no means justified by fair use to be use on Wikipedia. Also, the image that I put up there is not mine I've found it on Wikimedia and looked upon its content and did some research, it's an original. Based off what I've read on the Occupy Pages and the verificable information on the Occupy Wall Street page, this picture is well suited in a positive way. I'd recommend that you don't get caught up in the revert because you're reverting other contributor's work, too. If you have a change, all you have to do is just edit a piece of information like I did. All I did is provide templates because the article is indeed violating some crucial Wikipedia standards and other testify to this in the talk page, and the in the edit history summaries. I've provided information with sources to bring forth clarity in the infobox alone, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I added. Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Report away. I stand by my edits and won't be intimidated. Everything I've seen indicates you are editing in a highly disruptive fashion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello Factchecker! Sorry about any confusion that might have arisen at MedCab a few hours ago. The case that you filed is now located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/04 June 2012/Occupy Wall Street. You were confusing the bot because you left the article name off the end of the mediation request page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at OWS

Hi there, I was surprised to find "I should not be surprised at basic ignorance of policy by people editing this page" on the talk page at OWS - in reference to me. Personal attacks are stated at the top of each talk page as a violation of Wikipedia policies. My mistake was an honest one; an assumption of good faith is another policy here that you may not be aware of. In general: be nice. Treat others as you want to be treated.

Thanks for pointing out my error, by the way.petrarchan47^Tc 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, but as I said, it was a mistake. Completely. Those must be taken into consideration, ie, "assume good faith". Thanks again. petrarchan47^Tc 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OWS

Hi there. It seems that MadSci, who said he'd do some work on the article, is taking a break. I like your ideas for improving/bringing the article up to date. Would you be interested in presenting something? Or even a bold edit? Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit weary and bruised from the discussions of late. Is there anything specific you would recommend? I'd rather start off with something that at least one other person agrees with ;)

Also, it might be better to steer clear of issues on which Mad has registered strong disagreement. Otherwise we'll just have to revisit the discussion when he returns, and he probably wouldn't be thrilled with contentious disputes being "resolved" as soon as he walks away for a minute. (I've certainly been on the receiving end of that kind of thing.)

In any event, thanks for the note :) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly thought that your intention was good and sound as you expressed it in your opening statement about what updates you felt would be good for the article and I would support those additions. As for MadSci, I'm sure that he understands that nothing is being done behind his back. But I sure do understand why you would hesitate - it is disheartening to put a lot of work into something only to find that it results in endless bickering. Gandydancer (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys. Please feel free to continue to discuss all relevent issues and work on consensus and improve the article as you feel fit. I appreciate thinking of me but, I have been putting off finishing several real life projects (a number of landscape paintings I began many years ago) and am currently spending the majority of my hours on these for now...or untill all 6 are finsihed. I check in now and then and have been helping out a bit with Project editor retention and a few other articles I adopted years ago. Pretty obscure history articles on long destroyed Roman monuments. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a little more work on the article tonight. I think the anarchy subject seems covered well enough for now, as I am finding more that was overlooked in origins which seems more important for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mad. Thanks for your work. I don't really have a lot of energy right now for the OWS article, but I've been keeping tabs on it and currently have no concerns. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors

User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexian Lien beating.

Bearian (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Alexian Lien beating are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was discussion about the article. I responded to baseless speculation about Alexian Lien with reasonably well-informed speculation about why groups of biker thugs violently accost motorists. Not sure why you removed one and not the other. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's one thing to cite actual sourced opinions about what may have happened, but it's disruptive to post inflammatory accusations with no sources. Speculation about the possible crimes or evil intent of living persons, which in no way can be used to improve an article, is disruptive editing. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I just said: it was about the article. You are utterly full of it. The comments that you refrained from removing were baseless crime accusations with zero source. It would appear they just didn't bother you because the accusations weren't against motorcyclists. My comments were just general LEO comments about what gangs of thugs usually try to do after forcing an innocent motorist to a stop and basically imprisoning him on the open road. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cecily mcmillan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cecily mcmillan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This would appear to have been in error. In any event the re-constituted article now contains additional information regarding subject's notability. thanks Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cecily mcmillan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cecily mcmillan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. G S Palmer (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cecily McMillan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecily McMillan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecily McMillan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. M. Caecilius (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm replying here rather than on the talkpage of the above article. I put up the first version for speedy delete because the article did not contain any real assertion that this is a notable case. The second nom (by somebody else) is really the same, I don't think the addition of "credible" makes any difference. I'm actually on the fence on this article now, having read up on it a little: it could be a case that is of more than passing interest. A lot depends on what the sentence is.TheLongTone (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to conduct a cursory examination of the subject after having the article deleted. In the future I can only hope that you will take deletion criteria a bit more seriously. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I hope that in future you will try to include some reason for the subject of an article is notable before creating an article. Refreences don't hurt either.TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please adjust your editing style to suit my tastes. Message me when you're done. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am overwhelmed by your sarcam. Not. I was offering some sensible advice.16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my Talk page, and I'll snark if I want to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecily_McMillan. Thank you. M. Caecilius (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you weren't able to substantiate your claim with any text. Eerily similar to your policy arguments. Cheers, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Black Bike Week. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a personal attack and you have been warned before of the NPA policy. — Brianhe (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It was richly deserved. It would appear this guy has personal issues with me, or else a very very serious misconception about proper WP policy, and little or no ability to work with an opposing editor without exploding into accusations of ill intent and WP:TRUTH suppression. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering, have you actually read WP:TRUTH? I don't think it says what you think it does. — Brianhe (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it — and without the slightest hint of what you mean above, there's not much more I can say to you other than Yes. Have you actually read WP:Verifiability or WP:NPOV ? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's your answer. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Conversation with IP regarding Alexian Lien article

"Please be careful when writing WP prose based on a source. You wrote that a New York Times article claimed that Christopher Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision with Alexian Lien. The source does not say that."

No. It was an ABC news television interview. I merely transcribed it. Cruz himself makes that claim in the interview. Watch the video. Perhaps you didn't see the source I cited [attempted to cite].

"The source does say that stunt riders often attempt to slow other motorists down, but does not claim that's what Cruz was doing, and does not claim Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision."

That's the next cited source that says that, not what I wrote. Why are we not discussing this on the article's talk page, btw?

"Nor can we as WP editors draw that conclusion ourselves; that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research."

I understand that, and that is not what I did. Thanks for taking the time to explain it anyway. Again, see the actual source (video interview with Cruz).

"For a defense of Christopher Cruz's actions, you would need a statement that is specifically about his actions. I am guessing there are plenty of published quotes by Cruz's lawyer which could be included. But even then, our article would read something along the lines of, "Cruz's attorney stated that Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision", because we would need to attribute the statement to the person making it, rather than presenting it as plain fact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Again, watch the interview. That's why I included only Cruz's actual words to the interviewer, not my own thoughts or opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOo-UW1UCT8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.222.253.74 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

SUV/Motorcycle - Watch the interview with Cruz - I transcribed his actual words, no O.R.

"Please be careful when writing WP prose based on a source. You wrote that a New York Times article claimed that Christopher Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision with Alexian Lien. The source does not say that."

No. It was an ABC news television interview. I merely transcribed it. Cruz himself makes that claim in the interview. Watch the video. Perhaps you didn't see the source I cited [attempted to cite].

"The source does say that stunt riders often attempt to slow other motorists down, but does not claim that's what Cruz was doing, and does not claim Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision."

That's the next cited source that says that, not what I wrote. Why are we not discussing this on the article's talk page, btw?

"Nor can we as WP editors draw that conclusion ourselves; that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research."

I understand that, and that is not what I did. Thanks for taking the time to explain it anyway. Again, see the actual source (video interview with Cruz).

"For a defense of Christopher Cruz's actions, you would need a statement that is specifically about his actions. I am guessing there are plenty of published quotes by Cruz's lawyer which could be included. But even then, our article would read something along the lines of, "Cruz's attorney stated that Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision", because we would need to attribute the statement to the person making it, rather than presenting it as plain fact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Again, watch the interview. That's why I included only Cruz's actual words to the interviewer, not my own thoughts or opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOo-UW1UCT8

Due to the way the contents of the revert looked, I thought you had added the NYT material, but that was another editor. My bad. That was the material that misrepresented the source. As for the YouTube video, in general we try to avoid YouTube videos where possible (should be an official copy out there). And you can't make your own "transcript" of a video and then cite its exact words. That's WP:OR. I replaced the extended interview material with a paraphrase. Also, when it appears (to me) that a new IP user needs some basic policy guidance I usually post on the IP's talk page rather than the article page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm fine with the paraphrase. Admittedly, it was probably a ham-handed attempt on my part, as I'm not that familiar with Wiki formatting. But, since Cruz himself was disputing the speculation given in the Times article, I thought it was important to get that info in there. 108.222.253.74 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries do not suffice as "discussion"

It is your responsibility to engage in discussion on Talk:2013 IRS controversy and gain consensus for your proposed removal of longstanding text that is the result of significant prior debate, discussion and compromises. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You ignore that it is POV-pushing OR. You're taking a government document and then adding your own personal observation that they're all Republicans, as if to call into question the motivations or credibility of the committee members. If you want the WP article to pointedly make that observation, at minimum, you need a secondary source pointedly making that observation (and probably a rather notable one at that).

You also misunderstand BRD, which is not a Wikipedia policy.

Finally, edit summaries absolutely constitute discussion, and I also note you didn't even respond to the additional comment I made on the Talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not in any sense OR to acknowledge that the source of a particular document is the partisan leadership of a committee. The document is not authored by "the government." It's authored by the majority party on the House Oversight Committee (i.e., Republicans). That is how committees in the United States Congress work. Requiring a secondary source for that is like requiring a secondary source to reflect that the current White House Press Secretary speaks for a Democratic President. And, yes, the document absolutely reflects the motives of its authors: in this case, to suggest that the IRS is engaging in politically-motivated targeting. Similarly, a report from the minority party on the committee would likely reflect the motives of ITS authors. It's hardly controversial to acknowledge the source of a document so that readers can draw their own conclusions as to its reliability. Dyrnych (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a government document, despite being authored by evil Republicans. And it is OR to build in information that's not in the source, for the specific purpose of calling the primary source into question. That is what notable commentators do with primary sources, and even then we only touch their opinions when those opinions find their way into reliable sources. WP editors do not enjoy the same privilege. Please see WP:PRIMARY. Going around slapping unsourced partisan identifiers on view proponents for the purpose of questioning their credibility is OR.

Readers may inspect the original source for themselves and if they are interested they can discover the political affiliations of the authors, with a little research. Or you can cite to a secondary source that notes the political affiliation and draws some conclusions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that you will find no support for the notion that noting the authorship of a document is OR. But, hey: maybe you can prove me wrong. If you think it's OR, there's a noticeboard for that. Dyrnych (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find much support for the position that unsourced material must be inserted so that readers will know not to trust the source being referred to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is that an identification of the authorship of any document must be sourced independently? Interesting. Dyrnych (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that, redname. But adding an unsourced identifier for the purpose of putting an unsourced editorial spin on a primary source document is quite deep into the territoriy of inappropriate editing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "redname" supposed to be some sort of insult? I can't fathom why you'd address me by that moniker, though maybe you have some argument for why the term is intended to facilitate constructive dialogue. That aside, your misreading of WP policies continues, unless you're arguing that the authorship of the piece is not attributable. It interests me that you assume that knowing the source of the claim would cause readers to distrust the source. Again, though, if you're unclear on whether attributing a source to its author is OR, feel free to refer the matter to the noticeboard. Dyrnych (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Straw men for sale. Buy ten! No need to respond to what the other guy actually says! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No straw men here, buddy. You're claiming that including the authorship of the document would (1) be original research and (2) call into question the document's credibility in the minds of readers. As to your first claim, WP:NOR states: "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it." Similarly, the authorship of the source is not in question; we know that sources exist for it, because we have the rules of the House Oversight Committee for the 113th Congress and a record of the votes taken in committee, including the vote on the report. The authorship of the document is not (and should not be) in controversy, and there is no need to find a secondary source that attributes the document to its authors. As to your second, the fact that the authors have a partisan motive is highly relevant in evaluating its reliability. I would insist on similar attribution were this a report by the committee minority's staff, because the authors have a similar partisan motive in releasing the document. This allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the document, which is precisely the opposite of "putting an unsourced editorial spin" on the document. All that said, it's pretty clear that we're not going to reach any sort of resolution; you seem to be much more interested in impugning my motives and insulting me rather than engaging with my arguments. Dyrnych (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If a secondary source notes the alleged political affiliation of a government official making a report, or perhaps if the document self-identifies according to political affiliation, then that's fit for inclusion. Otherwise you are engaging in either unsourced editorializing or OR. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis

Regarding this edit and your edit summary "Again remove source-misrepresenting, OR-containing, POV-pushing material reflecting non-notable opinions, tendentiously reinserted". Actually my edit was the opposite of tendentious. It was consistent with WP:BANREVERT. I reverted Special:Contributions/221.7.11.9 on the basis that they were 'probably Jeremy aka Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis', who is site banned. You should probably familiarize yourself with this editor because you are likely to see them again (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis). The edit summaries and the targeting of specific editors and articles are characteristic of this person. They also often issue death threats and threats of violence against editors. Many of their edits, and they had made thousands, are revdel'd. They have been doing this for 10 years since they were about 15. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but since you reinserted a chunk of extremely bad material already repeatedly reinserted by a couple of TEs, with the inscrutable edit summary "probably Jeremy aka Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis", my immediate assumption was that you were joining in on what looked like a tag team. You can of course understand my confusion. In any event, it would appear the gentleman does occasionally make a good edit.

Also it would appear you failed to abide by the linked policy, which reads "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Please take additional care in future. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be more productive if you participate in the WP:DR above. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did. It's closed because the lead Palestinian axe-grinder didn't participate. The content, which violates multiple policies on its face and which you have made zero effort to defend or even explore on the article talk page will again be reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You did not participate at all. I will report at WP:AN/I - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not even sure what you mean by that, but I can tell you know how to file admin reports, so fire away. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy 4th, Sunshine

You behavior has been noted. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(Complaint dismissed as meritless) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not see your response at WP:DR. I have refactored the AN/I posting. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: pardon me

F.C.A.Y.S,

Yes, I removed the header on your user page, like I said in the edit summary , it violates Polemic . I see you put it back up. No problem, I won't touch it again. Just be aware that it violates that guideline . Kosh Vorlon    16:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC) _{PS: Your current signature doesn't have your nickname or your name so it may violate WP:SIG.}

In the edit summary, you linked a non-existent policy. Now that you have linked the correct policy, I don't see how it applies. I'm not going to bother asking for the finer details of your opinion, since I suspect you are a fellow who is generally uninterested in details. However you must understand that such a terse and mystifying statement is not going to make me "aware" of anything. Note that the essay has been considered for deletion before.

Your small-text comment regarding my sig is also puzzling. Is "Centrify" not my nickname or my name? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 IRS controversy reversion

I've now reinstated almost all of the edits that I made yesterday and which you've indicated were non-controversial. This encompasses eight individual edits where no content was added or removed (I've also made a couple of edits that changed content and which I'm not including in this count). I understand that you have objections to several of my edits from yesterday, but I think a better policy than mass-reverting my edits (most of which are non-controversial) would have been to dispute the few individual edits with which you had issues. Dyrnych (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool, it would also be better not pave the way for a "reorganization" and then bury major POV changes amidst all the effort, because then those major changes might go unnoticed and undiscussed. Generally it's also better to actually discuss those POV changes when you wish to make them, especially when you add a paragraph of editorializing at the end of all that and the net result is a major change to the tone of the article. Surely you can understand my concern that all of this might go unnoticed due to the way you made and talked about your edits, and at minimum it should be no surprise that I wanted to talk about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the changes that I made were major POV changes and in any event I think I documented them adequately in my edit summaries (which is pretty much the opposite of "burying" them), but I accept that discussion was warranted in some of those cases. I think I was pretty transparent on the talk page about my desire to include a subsequent reactions section (which I dispute is "editorializing" or a "major change"). I'll discuss that further at the talk page for the article, though. Dyrnych (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You giving a "summary" of the course of events, highlighting what you think have been the contours of the debate and placing it in what you think is proper perspective, is SYN. We let sources do that. And I find it surprising that you find it surprising that I objected to your removal of critical viewpoints without discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending the content of my edits here. I'm noting that the effect of my edits was clear in nearly all cases. We can discuss the content of the edits on the article's talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just noting that your discussion leading up to these edits, and the actual conduct of the edits themselves, together with the absence of expected discussion on a subject where you were sure to encounter resistance, all combined to give the impression that you were merely reorganizing the content and nothing more. A less careful editor than myself might never have noticed the un-discussed POV changes, which you knew would raise objections. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that that impression was given. And, honestly, distilling a number of quotes down to a descriptor of those quotes did not seem particularly controversial to me. In any event, there's a remedy for changes that are controversial: the BRD cycle. I had and have no objection to you reverting the edits that you disagree with. My objection was to the wholesale, sledgehammer reversion of even noncontroversial edits. Dyrnych (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you refrain from making edits that clearly call for a sledgehammer, your other edits are less vulnerable to collateral damage. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin

You have been reverted by three different editors over the past week. A slow-motion edit war is tendentious editing, and you are the one carrying it on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors can't gang up to violate policy, esp. not core policies. Please stop re-inserting manifestly inappropriate material into a BLP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Factchecker_atyourservice reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Conduct at 2013 IRS controversy

I am trying to be civil to you and address your concerns, but I am honestly not sure how I can continue doing this given your disruptive conduct and frequent edit warring. I would like to resolve this between us rather than seek any other dispute resolution. Let me give you three examples of the type of conduct that I'm concerned about.

1. Your wholesale reversion of my reorganization (which you keep referring to as a scare-quoted "reorganization"). We've discussed this above, and your entire thesis for the necessity of this ham-handed maneuver rests on your view that my motives in reorganizing were bad. Therefore, you reverted the entire effort. As has become clear, you've mistaken both the content and the effects of my reorganization; you have admitted in part that this is the case, although you maintain that the drastic step of reverting an effort that took me quite some time was necessary to restore material that you believe should have remained unsummarized in the article. To my knowledge, that and the presence of the Subsequent Reactions section (more below) are the only concerns that you have explicated and not withdrawn. After I manually restored the reorganization, you have said nothing that suggests that you believe that your conduct was disruptive or unwarranted; you've instead tried to justify it by reference--again--to my supposed motives in paraphrasing a series of quotes.

2. Your "discussion" of my proposed Subsequent Reactions section. My initial reorganization did in fact add a Subsequent Reactions section in which I noted that many liberals now believe that the targeting was not motivated by politics. In support of this, I cited four sources. In addition to these sources, I added a link to a recent poll noting that public opinion remains suspicious of the Obama administration--a view that does not in any sense fit your stated notion of my bias. Rather than restoring the section, I created a section on the article's talk page to discuss the propriety of adding the section. When I recapitulated my rationale for the section, you did not acknowledge my previous sources and simply stated that I "need a source noting this shift." I am assuming based on your previous edit summaries that by this you mean that citing those four sources for that proposition is WP:SYNTH. While I disagree (because noting that several sources come to the same conclusion is summary rather than synthesis), I nevertheless found numerous other sources in an attempt to mollify you. One of those sources was the House Oversight Committee minority's report, which directly states the proposition that investigation has found no evidence of political motives. Following this, you demanded that I post a source or delete my comment "per NOTFORUM." This discounts all of the sources I cited above and literally everything I said about the necessity for the inclusion of the viewpoint: that it exists and is notable, not that I am currently advocating for it. I asked you to explain how NOTFORUM was implicated or at least address my sources; to date, you have done neither. Additionally, I posted a link to a source that directly states that such a shift has occurred; you have not responded to this either. I am virtually certain based on your previous conduct that any attempt that I make to include the material, even thoroughly sourced as described, will result in a reversion from you based on a flimsy excuse such as a failure to discuss (which I've done at length with virtually no reciprocation) or lack of notability (despite being the view of the minority party in the House Oversight Committee and of the numerous sources I've named) or undue weight (despite amounting in its previous form to a tiny fraction of the page).

3. Your handling of yesterday and today's plagiarism/copyright infringement issues. You can read my post on the article's talk page in which I specifically note that your previous conduct convinced me to take a much more cautious approach and, nevertheless, you reverted my edit. But the most puzzling aspect of this for me is your contention that by raising these issues, I was "tilting at windmills to get the quotes removed on a technicality", seeking their removal on a "hypertechnical or mistaken reading of WP policy on copyrighted material." There is no evidence for this claim beyond--again--your interpretation of my motives. Similarly, you ignored my stated assumption that the plagiarism was inadvertent in favor of characterizing my concerns as some kind of personal attack on the editor in question and the fact that I followed WP policy in resolving this situation as further evidence of my bad motives.

In each case, your objections seem to stem primarily from your subjective view of my motives rather than any real critique of the content. Regardless of the accuracy of your view, this is a form of personal attack ("[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") and eliminates virtually any prospect of substantive, consensus-building discussion. Rather than assuming my good faith, you state that I have agenda-driven motives, that my edits are evidence of this, and that they are immediately suspect because of my supposed motives. This leads you to misconstrue my arguments in favor of your preferred interpretation of my arguments and misinterpret my edits as being done in bad faith. Meanwhile, you frequently refuse to engage in actual discussion about content, preferring to shift the argument back to my supposed motives.

I'm sure that you have concerns about me as well. If those concerns relate to my conduct and not to your assessment of my motives, I'm happy to address them. But if they ARE related to my supposed bad faith in editing, I would suggest that dispute resolution of a different type is necessary; I am not going to (and should not have to) go through a protracted discussion (divorced from any discussion of actual encyclopedic content) to reassure you once again about my motives prior to making any edit to the page.

The foregoing relates specifically to me. However, I am also concerned about the fact that beyond reversions, your edits are largely confined to the article's talk pages. Per WP:DE, while "such disruption may not directly harm an article, [...] it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article." This is precisely what I believe to be happening to the article in question. Dyrnych (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your conduct related to deleting those quotes and subsequent efforts to remove or minimize them was very suspicious. Despite the existence of AGF, you should take care that you don't make edits that look like you're trying to sneak POV changes in through the back door.

Your entire "Subsequent Reactions" section was synth, which you seem very close to realizing for yourself. You need a source that explicitly notes the shift you're talking about, not a series of sources which you think support what is actually the novel conclusion about other sources that you're making (inappropriately).

Suggestion for the future: if you think a piece supports certain WP article text, cite specific source text so that some discussion can be had, instead of simply listing URLs and declaring that they all confirm you're right. Editors are not mind readers and you cannot reasonably expect that others will know which text in which source you're talking about, or whether you are interpreting the text faithfully.

Also, consensus is a two-way street, not simply a requirement that other users get your permission before reverting changes that you made without discussion in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. So your reply is, in essence, that your conduct was entirely appropriate in all instances? Dyrnych (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it was far, far, far, far less inappropriate than yours. Purported editor-courtesy violations are not an excuse to violate content policies.

The "subsequent reactions" SYNTH that you wrote was removed quite appropriately. And the section of actual published media reactions, which you removed without comment in order to make room for your POV-pushing SYNTH, was restored quite appropriately. Question: has anything you've done so far been appropriate? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Other than that accusation of SYNTH (and I dispute this strongly), you have identified no content policy that I've violated. And that's my issue: whatever accusations you've leveled at me have stemmed entirely from your mistaken perceptions of my motives ("POV-pushing," etc.). I've already justified my actions at length; you have not in any sense engaged with those justifications. I can see that this is going nowhere, as you've already retrenched to your usual MO of hyperbole, mischaracterization, and insult. Dyrnych (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, pointing out that you're violating a content policy is not a personal attack. Nor is referring to material as POV-pushing. The material you are trying to insert pushes a POV, which is definitely a problem because the POV is as yet unsourced.

Dispute all you want; it's SYNTH, as I have patiently and repeatedly explained to you. Find a source making the observations you want the WP article to make, or STOP ARGUING, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

Reading your talk page is like watching a line of people repeatedly smash their heads into a brick wall, except I can't figure out who's the wall and who's just crazy... a disturbing but fascinating journey that will almost certainly lead to my giddying descent into madness.

I love it. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever accused me of being sane. Rational, sure, but that's not quite the same thing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Missle map

As I pointed out on the talkpage Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#locations of the crash site and missile launch post the source is from the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense and not confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So? Start a discussion on proper wording of the caption? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if I were to do that how would you go about explaining the red square? The map is good just take the red square out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What does the cited source say about the red square? And why are we having this chat on my Talk page? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that you have performed three reverts within an hour. Per WP:3RR, the fourth revert will get you blocked without any further warnings. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I usually don't worry about 3RR when reverting improper edits and diligently pursuing discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Airways

I didn't necessarily mean that it is rare to have such "doubles". However, indeed it is very rare. What is important is simple: are there reliable sources in order to have the info included? From this perspective it is not important if similar coincidences occurred in the past or not. Dmatteng (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I took your use of the "small" text template as an invitation to chat informally about it. Like we were whispering notforum-y stuff. I certainly don't think we should be reflecting such an observation unless an RS has. Anyhoo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use small template lol, you did. I'm also proposing to use the information only if reliable sources are present. :) Dmatteng (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You used small, I replied in small. As I said, I thought we were chatting. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? I don't see I have used small. I think you are referring to editor MilborneOne, he indeed used small. :) Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_4. Do you think we should include some information on the coincidence however? There was at least one reliable source proposed by another editor http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/second-disaster-strikes-malaysia-airlines-as-jet-goes-down-over-ukraine/story-e6frg6so-1226992992291?nk=4ee621ae8ebac3ffcf8e8078b38f6add. I also think if to dig a little more reliable sources can be uncovered. I would think we can summarize such sources in Coincidence section of the article. I don't really see how other editors do not consider it important. In my opinion it is a very encyclopedic material. We have two very rare and impossibly unusual crashes. It is written in the reliable source: "Two Boeing 777s. Two incredibly rare aviation disasters. And one airline." and "mind-boggling coincidence." Happy editing. Dmatteng (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I was talking to the other user. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That is just fine. You are welcome. Dmatteng (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject israel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikiproject israel. Since you had some involvement with the Wikiproject israel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just FWIW in case any editor is curious as to why I suddenly cared about a redirect: I attempted to use the Search feature to search for "WikiProject Israel". The engine returned no results and asked, "Did you mean WikiProject Islam?" Well, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would type in one, but hope to find the other. I saw that the only reason WikiProject Islam was yielding a result was because someone had created a redirect. Seemed pretty dry and uncontroversial so I did the same for WikiProject Israel. When a few editors immediately tagged the redirect for deletion, I added the Islam project redirect so future users don't get that potentially annoying "Did you mean...?" message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

IRS controversy edits, 27 July 2014

Your recent editing history at 2013 IRS controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You do not have consensus for the edit you keep reinstating (obscuring the authorship of the Oversight Committee staff report), as you should be aware from the fact that multiple editors have objected to your formulation and none has supported it. Please reinstate the stable version and either discuss this on the article's talk page or seek additional opinions if you feel that there should be a change. Dyrnych (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you're edit-warring yourself (and wrong on the policy) you might want to make sure you don't take a boomerang hit along with any possible sanctions that I'm rewarded with for attempting to keep you from writing the article as if your thoughts are a reliable source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits at List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service‎, 31 July 2014

Your recent editing history at List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Apparently you literally just came off a block for edit warring. Please stop doing this. Dyrnych (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop doing what? Having a summary article accurately reflect the topic it's supposed to summarize? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that that is your position. However, I have already noted several objections to the material. The appropriate thing for you to do in this circumstance is to leave the page as is pending discussion of your controversial changes or to seek dispute resolution, not to reinstate your preferred version over the policy-based objections of others. That is edit warring. Dyrnych (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you have read the material I added, which was specifically adjusted to meet your prior objections. Also, why are we having this chat at my Talk page? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We're having this discussion on your talk page because in our last conversation, you accused me of objecting in bad faith to your edits and explicitly stated that you would "probably not respond" to my "surreal nonsense." Therefore, I thought it best to wait for other editors to respond before making substantive changes of the kind that you've made pending some other opinion rather than (1) having another argument between us that ends in you making inflammatory accusations or (2) me posting objections on the article's talk page and you declining to respond, as you've stated that you would do. Dyrnych (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More nonsense; I didn't say that. You made a BS unsubstantiated claim that I"portray[ed] [the controversy] as unambiguously one way or the other [in violation of NPOV]". The claim was BS, and I asked you to redact it or substantiate it, and when you didn't, I said you were making the accusation in bad faith.

Are you still making that claim? If so, I still request that you either redact it or clearly substantiate it. (Hint: you can't, because I didn't do what you accused me of.)

You need to have thick enough skin to distinguish between being insulted and simply being shown wrong. If you want to talk about the article content, let's talk about it. If you're just here to expound upon your misperceptions and hurt feelings, please leave me alone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and demonstrable that you DID state what you are now claiming not to have stated, but it's immaterial to the fact that you are edit warring to keep your preferred version: the precise thing that you were JUST BLOCKED for doing. I am asking you to self-revert and try to get some kind of consensus for your edits, per Wikipedia policy. Dyrnych (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More nonsense. I now ask you again to substantiate or redact, else you are simply a liar. You do realize there is a paper trail of every word, right?

I will not self-revert, because the version I wrote abides by policy very well, and the version you wrote did not, and your rantings about consensus reflect little more than an expectation that you be allowed a free hand to unilaterally write WP articles from a biased left-wing perspective, and then revert and purport to demand "discussion" — even though it turns out none is forthcoming — when another editor tries to reflect a notable side of a debate that you don't agree with. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

nice try

Saw your user talk comment at Michael Ridgeway's. Nice try to give some guidance, but he is bound and determined to prove that wikipedia is a big conspiracy against his truth. Every time someone reaches out to him, he twists it into another attack. Ah well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Thomas Jackson (police officer). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The G4 of Thomas Jackson (police officer)

I didn't notice your comment on the G4ing of Thomas Jackson (police officer) until after I left my own request for clarification.

My understanding of WP:CSD#G4 is that it is authorized when someone takes a copy of previously deleted article, and restores it, essentially unchanged. As I commented to User:Davey2010 it appears User:Cwobeel drafted the current version, ab initio.

Are you in a position to offer an informed opinion as to whether or not Cwobeel's draft was a mere duplicate of the deleted material, not a brand new attempt to cover Jackson? Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I did not know that there was a previous AFD until after I started the article, so it could never have been a copy of the deleted article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you started a brand new article -- in which case G4 was definitely out of order. Geo Swan (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the article and at the original deletion discussion and saw that all of the original reasons for deleting the old article also applied to the new article. The policy does not require it be an exact copy. In any event, I lack permissions to view deleted content & so I don't believe I'd have a ready means of checking.

I also saw the G4 nomination by RockMFR, saw that he is an 8-year veteran, and trusted that the nomination was apt (and based on what I saw, it appeared quite apt). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shooting of Michael Brown page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Continuation

I believe that, if an editor consistently advocates for edits that favor one side, he is by definition a POV-pusher. And I've noticed that from the gentleman in question for a long time. At the same time I trusted other experienced editors to keep him in check—in ways that don't involve violations of AGF and PERSONAL. It's possible my trust was misplaced, but the fact remains that the issue needs to be addressed elsewhere for the reasons I gave. It should be relatively easy to compile a list of his edits (and proposed edits) and show that they never favor the police point of view. If that's not enough to get a sanction, then I'm completely full of shit. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP is full of very experienced editors, yet Cwobeel has never received even a temporary block. In my opinion, that should suggest something about the effectiveness of WP policies and procedures for dealing with axe grinders. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if experienced editors have taken it to the appropriate place and presented a strong case. Have they? Does he have friends in high places? Or is it just a general inadequacy in dealing with POV-pushers in particular? From what I've seen, it's quite possible to get sanctions for other types of offenses, if you (1) have good reason to complain, and (2) present the case effectively. I don't think I've looked at POV issues though. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the answer is No, nobody has tried to make that case, and I suggest to you that this might be evidence of the process being ineffective. In any event, if you had further issue with my comments on that talk page, you'd be stuck pursuing the same sort of admin intervention that nobody has bothered with regarding Cwobeel. I believe that a great many editors have already concluded that such procedures are more trouble than they are worth, and, like me, have resigned themselves to boldly working in service of what they see as The Project — without much concern for the very occasional interventions from on high. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good luck with that. I think it can only lead to Wikipedia meltdown, akin to a room full of people all screaming QUIET!!!!!! at the top of their lungs because they can't hear. When everyone is a vigilante, civilization collapses. But what do I know. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's as dramatic as all that. In any event, I'd rather have anarchy with respect to civility policies than anarchy with respect to content policies, which is what we've got if certain users are not kept in check with an occasional, restrained bit of gruff language. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Food for thought. Thanks for the conversation. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. Sorry it had to be like this! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWBLPBAN

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just what are you trying to say? Cat got your tongue? Since this message is "informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date", what am I to make of the fact that you posted it on my talk page without any additional comment? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's procedural. What he did was officially make you aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the Tyson article. Under the rules, an editor cannot be sanctioned under the Discretionary sanctions procedure unless they are officially aware discretionary sanctions are in place, and you now are officially aware. Any editor can make another editor "aware" of this fact, and that's what AQFK did. Because of that, any admin can now instantly sanction you if they feel you have violated the terms of the sanction. It's all detailed in discretionary sanctions Marteau (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules for alerting an editor say that we're not supposed to change anything in the alert. I'm not sure if adding an explanation is the same thing changing the alert, so that's why I didn't, but I figured that if you wondered why I posted this, you would ask and I could explain. I posted it because of this.[4] That is completely unacceptable, and given that you've been on Wikipedia since 2007, you should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly appear that Wikipedia has a real big fucking problem with editors who "ought to know better". But then, I'm talking about unimportant content policies, whereas you are upholding the important important social policies that remind us to sit down and shut up when the masses of endlessly misbehaving progressive editors shout us down. Cool name, by the way! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Strike it!

Hey, Factchecker, I urge your to delete or strike your comment about "dumb progressives." It could very well give an itchy trigger-finger the opening to block you. Please don't get yourself in unnecessary trouble. Cheers, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've been around this block. Cwobeel is playing a game with you. You are spending 10x more effort trying to counter his inappropriate rhetoric and editing efforts than he is spending himself. And since there are vastly more progressives editing WP than centrists, conservatives, or even plain old Liberals, all of the disingenuousness and insincere posturing becomes part of a larger aggregate in which a large mass of people can use WP's social policies to ignore or countermand its content policies. I believe you yourself are complaining of a phenomenon that sounds achingly similar. I applaud your patient willingness to calmly articulate the problem without stepping over any lines yourself. I hope that you do not have cause to regret that patience and generous spirit. Myself, I feel I have already been burned. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several other instances where your tone with other editors has been immoderate. I'm thinking of these in particular: "shut the hell up", "I, also, give zero fucks about what you think", "you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies". Please recall that you agreed to be more agreeable at ANI. As that resulted in a "last warning" for you, consider this a courtesy call in lieu of another ANI case opened by me. — Brianhe (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust you also censured Cwobeel for saying he didn't "give a fuck" what I think, in the comment I was replying to when I said the same thing? I trust you censured Cwobeel for abusing the Talk page in the section in which I instructed him to either start using Talk for its intended purpose or stop talking? I trust you went and censured Michael-Ridgway for openly musing that all the other editors on that article lacked a conscience, in the comment where I responded that maybe he is just doing it wrong?

No, actually I trust you didn't do any of that. Why are you here, then?

ANI knows where I live. Knock self out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I likewise find some of your comments over the top and abusive. I agree with your position (and even many of the facts about the liberal bias), but try to be a bit more civil about it. You harm your own position on the issues when you are uncivil as everyone starts to dismiss "that side" of the debate. --Obsidi (talk ) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. I am a strong supporter of including information about "Quotegate" but I think the tone you are taking in the discussions harms the inclusionist cause and only makes your opponents even stronger in their views that they are right and we are wrong. Many of them do have feelings of wanting to protect people they like, Neil Tyson included, but coming out with verbal flame throwers against the man on the talk pages is not going to win the day. Reasoned, rational discussion is the way, in my view. Marteau (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines reminder

Hello. In this edit, you interjected comments that 1) did not address the topic under discussion, 2) interrupted an already ongoing discussion, and 3) distracted the thread with a top post. Per WP:TPO, " To avoid confusion, the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments." Hopefully, this will be the last time I'll have to remind you of this. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What a quaint but largely misguided complaint. My comments (1) directly addressed the topic; (2) contributed to an already ongoing discussion; and (3) do not appear to have distracted anyone. To avoid confusion, I placed my comment immediately underneath the comment to which I was replying, and made several extra indents to make it obvious that the reply had not been immediately posted after the replied-to comment.

Meanwhile, while you're busy complaining about the most innocuous and harmless technical violations of chat-page policy, you're egregiously trampling on the very core of Verifiability and NPOV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise: something everyone dislikes

Centrify, would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh. As long as we're discarding NPOV as a mere inconvenience, would it be OK if we had the WP prose refer to Tyson as "confirmed big dumb poopyhead Neil Degrasse Tyson" ?

But seriously, no I would never support anything like that, and the very fact that you're considering this as a means of "compromise" is the essence of what I was complaining about earlier re: progressives ganging up to violate policy. I don't believe I will be on WP much this weekend and I certainly won't try to undermine any efforts you make, but I do not believe this suggestion would be a wise or proper course. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning

Factchecker, you have reverted the edits of others to resinsert the same information three times. [5] [6] [7] If you do it again, you could be blocked for edit warring. Please seek consensus on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP policy doesn't allow multiple editors to gang up to violate policy; that's not what consensus means. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Alison Lundergan Grimes

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at this edit warring complaint (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think Cwobeel should have gotten a longer block with extra-special boomerang bonus; this guy shows a troubling pattern of edit war --> threaten anyone who objects --> attempt to neutralize editor via sanctions. More generally he seems to view admin processes as an alternative to hashing out content disputes, and "consensus" as a rhetorical tool useful for justifying relatively clear NPOV violations.

Other than that, no concerns. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop?

You keep accusing me of "snipping" at you, but I have done nothing of the kind. Your continued accusations in talk page discussions are not helpful and distract from the task at hand. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems your contribution to that discussion consisted almost entirely of you being confused about stuff and making personal attacks against me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) Check my contrib list. You may not like my edits, but that is not a reason for your continued harassment; (b) Please show me where did I attack you (I only see your attacks on me, otoh). - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility

I think your comment to Myopia123 at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown about "silly navel-gazing", and your suggestion that they post their thoughts on their own Talk page instead of at the relevant article Talk page, was both uncivil and uncalled-for, and this is not the only example I have recently witnessed of this behavior on your part. It isn't necessary and is rarely productive to insult those you disagree with. I am only an editor, not an administrator, but if I was the latter I would be talking with you about potential sanctions if the behavior continued. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Empathize with stupidity and you're half way to thinking like an idiot" likewise seems directed at another editor, not just a philosophical idea tossed out into the breeze. If it's still hard for you to refrain from this kind of thing, why don't you take a break? — Brianhe (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

After Myopia123 made the eminently trollish comment that it's probably unconscious racism that explains why we refer to mr. giant-ass Michael Brown as a "man" instead of a "boy", I was simply pointing out, another possibility is that this idea of his is a load of garbage. I really don't think an editor who really doesn't know anything about anything can just come out swinging like that and expect a candy-coated response. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a middle ground between candy-coated and idiot? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact is there are a lot of people who think that unconscious racism (or conscious racism) explain a lot of things. It's never going to be constructive to tell them that this idea is "a load of garbage". Did you expect Myopia123 to say, "Oh, you must be right, how silly of me"? Ain't going to happen. As I said, I think it was constructive that we had the opportunity to offer some more plausible (and less onerous) reasons why the article used the wording that it did. The best way to address silly ideas is not just to accuse people of being silly for thinking of them, but to give them a reason to think so too. However, and candidly, I don't think you were really thinking in terms of correcting Myopia123's misimpression, or about improving the article. Based on what I see here and have witnessed myself, I think you were primarily focused on improving your own ego. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, am *I* really supposed to react, "Oh, I thought I referred to him as a man because he's a gigantic violent criminal, but really it must be my unconscious racism, thank you so much for pointing it out"? No, it was meaningless slap-in-the-face rhetoric, virtually devoid of reference to reality, impossible to prove, it's worthless other than as a self-congratulatory gesture and as a message to the other side that their views are worthless. Perhaps a more appropriate response would have been to collapse the whole talk section as irrelevant to improving the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So, is your ego really so delicate that you must react to such a statement by resorting to insults and name-calling? I did not feel I had been "slapped in the face" by Myopia123's rhetoric, and I don't understand why you would have done either. I thought they were mistaken, so did you, but you apparently found a reason to take it very personally. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So long as Myopia reacts with that same calm, cool logic to my suggestion that his idea was silly, we'll be fine. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A final comment on my part here: No, just because other editors are wise (or lazy) enough not to take your bait doesn't mean it's OK for you to keep baiting other editors by launching personal attacks. This is ultimately going to hurt you (in terms of your role as a Wikipedia editor) more than it does them. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Spare me this livid lecture; OP's comment was insulting and unconstructive and trollish. Go yell at him please. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A calm and well-reasoned counter-argument is always more effective than calling someone an idiot. The latter makes it too easy to write you off as simply a crazy troll person who has nothing of interest to say (by others as well as your target). The former also keeps you from running afoul of civility policy, so it's a double-win. If they are in fact an idiot, that will be apparent enough to the others without your pointing it out. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that Shooting of Michael Brown and "associated pages" are under discretionary sanctions for, among other things, violating standards of behavior, including civility. — Brianhe (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the very first time you templated me for civility, it was silly and sort of looked like an effort to stop me from participating in a content dispute. Ditto the second time, where you seemed utterly unconcerned by the other editor's telling me he "didn't give a fuck" what I thought, but then you turned right around and warned me when I responded in like language.

When confronted with policy the first time, you clammed up, filed against me at ANI without another word, and got shut down with boomerang warnings. The second time around, you just clammed up. Now you've given me the obligatory DS warning in connection with a page you don't even edit, and a quick search reveals you've never even posted a single byte of text at its talk page. Pardon me, sir — but I get the impression you are being motivated by something other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia; seems more like you want revenge for your prior embarrassment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not assume good faith and take my note as a cordial heads-up to you? Accusing me of seeking revenge just makes you look more like someone who can't cope with a cooperative, self-regulated environment. — Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"cooperative, self-regulated" contemplates editors who cooperate, and regulations that are observed, not a political fist fight where all the proggies gang up to violate policy and harass users who don't have the correct views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you stay, if you find it to be such a battleground. I'm sure there are other places you would find comfort with strictly like-minded people. — Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and that means helping to keep discussions focused on content, not contributors. When you see discussions turn again and again away from content and into pissing contests, and then you notice that the common thread that runs through these pissing contests is the presence of one particular individual, then it's obvious that the best way to make the encyclopedia better is to get that individual to change their behavior. In other words, Factchecker, stop being a dick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate all of you taking the initiative in this but I think giving this dude more attention is a waste of time and exactly what he wants. Thanks a lot though. -Myopia123 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What an adorable comment from an obvious troll. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Fuck you too. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

such intellect much wow Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it both of you. You are all expected to be civil and failure to do so can result in a block. Chillum 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I had enough of your behavior

I have a think skin, but you have just pierced it. Go fuck yourself. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a fine little essay, that thick one. I particularly like the part where it says: "sometimes you will find that person obtuse, insufferable, and annoying. Don’t take the bait and become yourself obtuse, insufferable, and annoying to that person." Perfect. Just perfect. Nietzche said it similarly: "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster." Nietzche would agree, there's lots of "monsters" on Wikipedia. And they ALL point their finger at the other guy, never taking a moment to look in the mirror for what they are and have become. Marteau (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that essay. But when you are persistently harassed, day after day, it sucks the fun of editing the pedia. FCAYS has made it his leitmotif. I think he gets a lot of pleasure from being a enfant terrible. But I had enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, it's way past the point where you could be misrepresenting sources in an accidentally partisan way. It's impossible to believe that time and time again, you just accidentally misrepresent sources to trash a person, and it just turns out to be a person whom you don't like, or whose politics or views you despise.

After the dozenth time it is no longer possible to maintain credulity when you say "oopsie!". And this time you didn't even say "oopsie", you just angrily threw it back in my face.

Notice: you can cuss at me all you want, template me, etc.; I don't care. I'm not going to complain to the civility cops. All I want is for you restrain your objectively improper editing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So, OK, I screwed up on that edit. But that does not mean that you have to always make snide comments about me or others: Discuss the edit and not the editor. Now, if you think you are the Defender of the Wiki, I can assure you that that type of behavior is not only silly, but quite arrogant actually. Wikipedia does not need you. Now, go and do some useful editing instead of complaining about the edits of others. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, how is it that you think removing improper defamation from WP articles is not useful? Do you think you bear any responsibility for leaving all sorts of poopy little messes all over the place, or is it all the fault of the pooper scoopers? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove, explain the reason for your removal, and leave it at that (or better, fix it). Just don't add your opinion about the reasons or motivations of others, because more often that not you may be wrong about both. That only diminishes you and demeans others. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another user had already removed and explained, you ignored the explanation and edit warred, and also issued a bunch of improper threats to the other editor.. I came in, removed again, explained further, you again ignored the explanation and again edit warred, and complained that I wasn't complaining about your improper editing in the proper format. You even accused me of not reading the source, even though it was my correct reading of the source that helped put your "confusion" to rest. This is umpteenth time this exact scenario has played out; you defend obviously improper content with tooth-and-nail edit-warring, and then come out pointing fingers after you're shown wrong. Query: do you think you have any obligations at all to other editors — and when you obviously violate policy, are other editors allowed to talk about it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Shooting of Michael Brown. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Personal attacks such as the one in this edit summary are unacceptable. Please stop doing this. - MrX 15:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)