User talk:Ubikwit

/Archive 1, /Archive 2

Nostalgia isn't as tasteful as it used to be!

This is a TOTALLY un-editorish observation, but looking at 'your' Roosevelt quote : Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth .... I couldn't help but wonder when it last was that a public figure using the word 'vulgar' would, not only be clearly understood as being disapproving, but also as expressing his UTTER distaste, also when last such a public figure using that word wouldn't immediately be the object of satirical sniggers ... especially if he was from a relatively priveleged background and hadn't mastered the art of hiding that background. How times change!!Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: an amusing observation. You have to hand it to TR for having the resolve and temerity to get the job done, even though he was from a privileged background, he had the "start from scratch" pioneer spirit. We have to raise the level of public discourse, a least to what it was back in the early 1900s, including the vocabulary.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

List of atheists in "Religion in Japan" article

Could you please explain your recent edit on the corr. talkpage JimRenge (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks JimRenge (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to correct a misunderstanding

At the now-closed ANI thread, you said that I presented those two diffs as examples of misconduct on your part. I had actually only said that you had "spoken harshly", and I do not consider speaking harshly to be misconduct, at least not at the level of administrative action (obviously not best practice, but not, for example, a violation of NPA either). I wouldn't want you to think that I was asking for you to be blocked, because I wasn't. I hope that's clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but there was a lot of tendentious bullshit going on in that thread for which some of the editors should be blocked. You shouldn't be so quick to make the appearance of taking sides in such a dispute without having read the reams of bullshit that led me to file at AN/I.

My "speaking harshly" was in response to the tendentiousness, and that eventually led to the filing of the AN/I complaint. This issue is probably no over yet, because it appears that there is a determined group of editors aiming at squelching what RT has to say about Ukraine, the USA, etc. I won't wait so long to file the next complaint, because in this case, new editors--including bobrayner--started coming out of the woodwork when it looked like the thread would be wound up with a reasonable consensus, and using language like "crap" to try and denigrate articles they didn't like because they didn't like it, and dumb down the thread to the lowest common dumbominator. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of anybody else who stumbles across this talkpage and is at risk of taking Ubikwit's comments at face value, this "new editor" has been working on controversial topics for several years and has made 144 edits to WP:RSN. Which is rather more than Ubikwit. But if we're now ditching the allegations of bias, sockpuppetry &c in favour of canvassing, I'd love to see the evidence for that. bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? When did I call you a "new editor"?

What the fuck do you mean about taking my comments at face value?

You showed up with an agenda on the RS/N thread, and I'm going to take you to task.

Stay away from this talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You asked me at the now closed SPI page about whether you had done something wrong with the word "interlocution". No, I was responding to the other editor, who seemed to be quoting you as having said "interlocking". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that's funny. Time for me to get some sleep. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Yank Barry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yank Barry 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/Yank Barry 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. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Voice of Russia

Are you sure Voice of Russia is connected to RT (TV network)? According to their WP article they are owned by International Information Agency Russia Today, but I don't belive they are connected in any way. Other than that I believe it's a quite simular and relevant discussion. Regards from Norway. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. They seem related, but maybe not directly connected. The same person, Margarita Simonyan, is director of both of them. For all intents and purposes at the RS/N discussion, it should be considered similar, as you suggest. If somebody complains, I'll remove that post. I think that the quote is a representative case in point.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

clear edit war

This is an official warning that you are single-handedly at 4RR at The Shock Doctrine and you are urgently asked to self-revert on that article post-haste. You have reverted three separate editors, making your self-assertion of "consensus" quite suspect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ANEW notice as you requested

See WP:AN/EW as you demurred on any self-revert and actually asked that the report be filed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please read my warning at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@BBb23: OK, I've read the warning, and will focus on contributing to the article constructively.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning regarding disruptive edits: read and heed WP:BRD

You appear to be making disruptive edits on the Oligarchy and Plutocracy articles, such as this edit removing sourced text.
Contrary to your assertion in your revert, subverting the BRD cycle, that there is no consensus on the Oligarchy article with respect to the material you have reverted, there is consensus and the text has been the subject of much discussion.Limestoneforest (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Making unsupported assertions about consensus established on the Talk page is disruptive of the consensus building process, and not a sign of collaborative editing. If there is evidence of this consensus to which you refer on both the oligarchy and plutocracy page, then it would (at the least) be incumbent on you to show me exactly where this consensus is. Limestoneforest (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off, troll.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree with that editor. But even when we don't agree, we should try to assume good faith. Please keep the language civil, even if it's on your own talk page.Mattnad (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor copied the text I posted on their Talk page in a tit for tat mockery here.

And that was after ignoring what I'd written about the BRD cycle and reverting without discussion at the Talk page.

Don't show up here to preach to me about assuming good faith unless you've read the relevant discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the editor is a troll and is not welcome to comment here again.

You agree with that editor? What do you mean by that, exactly? With which edits on which page? All of the above?

If you think you agree with what that editor is doing, then why don't you try to explain his edits, or at least your interpretation of them, instead of coming here to condescendingly proselytize about good faith.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a fucking good one. Your attempt at victimhood (for an argument that you started) is as hilarious as an arrested school shooter moaning about unfair treatment by the justice system.

"As far as I'm concerned, the editor is a troll and is not welcome to comment here again." If you couldn't take the heat, then you shouldn't have stepped in the kitchen. Limestoneforest (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not welcome to comment here, troll.

Do so again and I'll report you at AN/I.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

For your own sake, don't report me to AN/I because the only thing that will happen is that it's going to boomerang back to you with the force of an edit block. That said, I've already sent the message that I needed to send so your talkpage won't be of any further use to me, although if you're still angry about this exchange, you're free to rant about it on my talkpage. Limestoneforest (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wimbledon is on

My Grandad was from Kobe. Nothing else to say. Gregkaye (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Kobe has nice hills overlooking the sea. Like many places, it's somewhat overbuilt at present. Thanks for the refreshing strawberries.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

June 2014

Your recent editing history at History of the Jews in Nepal 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. Thomas.W ^talk 18:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have not left such a warning at the User:Tomwsulcer's talk page, hich somewhat curious, especially since you have not taken part in the discussion.

As to your warning, what is the RR count at which you have posted this warning?

Since the only interaction I've had with you on Wikipedia has been at an An/I thread where you made a baseless accusation of WP:OWN, consider this a warning against behavior that might fall under WP:STALK.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you responded at the ANI thread, but still find your warning to be somewhat questionable.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 July

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 Sylvain Lévi page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for my response to your posting at ANI. It was out of line and I regret it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted.

If you don't mind some advice, there is a lot more going on in the background on Wikipedia than meets the eye, and it takes time to see some of the patterns of interaction. If you aren't simply aiming to become an admin, you should probably restrict participation on the notice boards to topics that you are interested in so that you don't mind reading the background to the dispute. Only then can you form an informed opinion as to where the disputants stand in relation to the topic matter, and even more importantly at An/I, policy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand

Please do not interpret my Strong Oppose for the ban proposal as support for your participation at ANI. I agree with User:Volunteer Marek that your actions resemble battleground mentality. You are engaging in some areas with strong feelings, which often escalate, but that's just a good reason to try to avoid quick escalation. Do not assume everyone who disagrees with you is a bad person, do not jump to ANI whenever someone fails to accept your position. If you continue on the same path, I predict you will get banned, but I strongly oppose jumping the gun. In the same way I think you jump the gun too much, I see the community's reaction the same way. I'll say it again, I am not supporting your approach to things, but I do think we should urge you to take things a bit more calmly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the counsel.

Wikipedia has policies, and policy is supposed to regulate emotion when editing controversial topics. That is why it is important that policy be enforced uniformly, and not in a selective or arbitrary manner. I'm not here for social networking, but building an encyclopedia, and I do make an effort to be collegial.

When others stray from RS and NPOV in a case such as the article at issue, where a lot of fringe material was introduced in an attempt to influence an AfD discussion, it is not that I think the other editors disagree with me, it is that they are editing against policy. They can disagree with me all they like as long as they have RS to support their assertions.

In the ANI case at hand, I ignored the personal attacks in the AfD thread, but sometimes when you do that the person takes it as a license to continue. The article at hand is somewhat trivial, as Ravpapa has indicated, and I wouldn't want to let that jeopardize my ability to contribute to more important articles. It is somewhat disturbing that not a single admin has said a word to IZAK about the attacks.

I'm going to scale back editing Wikipedia for a while after I appeal a topic ban at AE. I have more important matters to attend to in real life, but will continue to monitor a few things here. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of the Jews in Nepal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [lemongrass]]". Nardostachys jatamansi is a spice grown in the Himalayas of Nepal, China and Iindia).<ref>{{cite book|last1=Groom|first1=Nigel|title=The new perfume handbook|date=1997|publisher=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

As a favor to me, would you consider striking the word "inept" from your comments to Formerip. I don't know what interactions the two of you have had in the past, and I don't particularly care to know. But on that article in particular, I would like to have an exquisitely collegial atmosphere.

Much appreciated,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I thought I'd deleted that before clicking the save button.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lesser Cartographies: OK, I've gone to great lengths to explain the concern with the use of "real" in this context, as a central issue related to the sourcing pertained to the distinction between the original band and the cover band and the conflation thereof. Please respond there, and let me know whether the RfC close should be challenged on a procedural basis, or whether FormerIP can amend/clarify it in the case, for example, that he hadn't read the archived thread to which I linked, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1) I assume you're familiar with ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. As far as the RFC is concerned, the ratio decidendi is Barry should not be identified as a former member of The Kingsmen in Wikipedia's voice. As best I can tell, you agree with that wholeheartedly. The rest is dicta. Coming out with metaphorical guns blazing ("you have no appreciable knowledge of intellectual property law", etc.) because you got the decision you wanted but without your preferred rationale is, as we say in the hills, borrowing trouble.

Editing here is an exercise in continuous compromise. RFCs are unusual in that there are well-defined winners and losers. If you've won on the merits, have the good grace not to insist on winning the dicta as well. If you establish a reputation as someone who compromises easily and often as without any fuss, other editors will (over time, on average) tend to be willing to make larger compromises in their positions when collaborating with you. On the other hand, if you establish a reputation of being unwilling to compromise, especially when you're right, then you'll end up accomplishing less, as there's no incentive for folks to compromise with you.

2) I find this particularly troubling: "The issue does not hinge on whether or not there was a decision handed down by the court, because the legal issue is clear and uncontested...". That's not what we do here, especially for WP:BLPs, and most especially for WP:BLPs who are looking for additional editors to fill out their John Doe roster in their active lawsuit. If there's a reliable source that says the legal issue is clear and uncontested, then we may be able to say that with attribution. And that's as far as we go. I'll point out, though, that the issue was unclear enough at the time that one group of people thought they could legally start a cover band, and another group of people thought otherwise. They had access to the contract. We don't. (It wouldn't surprise me at all that the controlling interest did own the copyrights, but decided it wasn't worthwhile fighting the issue in court. The music business has a well-deserved reputation for wonky contracts.)

3) As to cease and desist letters: they require the issuer to have $45 and a pulse (I may be exaggerating a bit; having a pulse is not strictly necessary). I can send you a c&d letter to stop violating my copyright in your posts; it doesn't follow from this that I have a copyright interest, or that you've violated it if I do. If you get to court, the existence of the letter may be helpful in demonstrating that you made the other party aware of their actions by a certain date, but that's about it. Even DMCA notices require good faith; a c&d doesn't even require that.

4) Finally, you've done a lot of good research here, and I respect both your thoroughness and your passion. I am also cognizant of your comment (far) above: "I am focused on creating content, not gaming the system". You might want to consider focusing less on content creation and more on being an effective editor (which has the nice side effect of making content creation a lot easier). Never belittle another editor ("I'm not understanding where you're coming from wrt copyright" comes across a lot nicer than "You don't understand copyright"). If someone attacks you, limit yourself to a neutral, one-sentence reply and let it go. If they keep attacking you, ask an admin to handle it. Take the extra time to whittle a 300-word reply down to a 60-word reply, and then wait a few hours before hitting "save page". It also doesn't hurt to say "thank you" and hand out a few compliments.

Is this gaming the system? Sure, if you want to look at it that way. But the best editors here aren't necessarily the best researchers; the best (in terms of effectiveness) are those that have figured out how to make other editors feel good about collaborating with them, even when they disagree. (Dennis Brown excels at this, if you're looking for an example.)

Just so you don't think I'm being sanctimonious, checkout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhat Samgiita, where (as Garamond Lethe) I grabbed the debate with both hands and wouldn't let go. Was I right? Sure. Was I able to quote chapter and verse of policy? Absolutely. Am I proud of what I accomplished? No, not really. We cleaned out a lot of bad articles, but that wasn't worth the herculean efforts I put into refuting every argument that came up. I didn't like the person I was becoming, so I took a break and came back with a different nym. I'm still learning how to say less and when to say nothing, but I'm getting there.

And with that, I think I've trespassed on your patience more than enough.

With much respect,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial reply and editor advice based on a long history contributing here

As I mentioned above to Sphilbrick, I'm trying to wrap up a few loose ends here and take a break. I don't even remember how I got involved on that article, but it is not something I intend to spend more time on. At the same time, I don't want to see a point that much time and effort was spent on get obfuscated.

I would agree with regarding the "ratio decidendi", etc, but what follows that in some ways comes close to outright contradicting it.

The point about the cease and desist letter is that the cover band was disbanded after the letter was issued, no contest, therefore no issue. One editor put it in simple terms in his !vote in the RfC

Oppose. We have good sources that he was a member of a cover band organized by a party who lacked the rights to the name. At the time, tbough, Barry apparently thought, with reasonable cause, that he was a member of the Kingsmen. --John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If the distinction between the original (i.e., "real") band and the cover band (or whatever you want to call it) is lost, then there is a likelihood that the reality of the scenario is going to be misrepresented in the article. I don't think it was a good choice of wording to use in the close because it seems to call the distinction into question, whereas that is clearly refuted simply by the fact that the cease and desist letter was issued by the members of the original band in the first place.

There's one further point that people not familiar with "moral rights of the author" would not be aware of, and that is the fact that those rights cannot be transferred or violated by anyone, as I recall. In France, according to the Wikipedi article, the right are perpetual, inalienable, and imprescriptible. I'm not sure those are protected in the USA, and apparently not as strongly as in Europe, but the Berne Convention is in effect (though I now see that the US made some stipulations regarding the moral rights clauses). My understanding of the application of moral rights of the author in this scenario would be something like the law precludes the possibility of a band not comprising members of the original band to ever be presented or to represent themselves as the original band, regardless of whether the management has control over neighboring rights related to the bans music.

There is only one band called Radio Head, for example, and no other band will ever be permitted to represent themselves as the band Radio Head. A hundred cover bands playing radio head's music might come and go, but they will always be cover bands, even if they are employed by the management of the original band and that management has control of some of the neighboring rights associated with the bands music. (Maybe a UK band is not a good example, though, as I note that in the UK moral rights are: "economic, can be waived, must be asserted".) At any rate, that was one point of copyright law to which I was referring, maybe the provisions of Berne are weakened in the USA Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. That doesn't change the fact that a cease and desist letter was issued and the cover band disbanded, though (some sort of rights were asserted by the original members of the band).

Anyway, I appreciate the camaraderie, and if you have further info on the applicability of moral rights in this case I'd be interested in hearing your comments and learning more about the issue, which I find to be intrinsically interesting.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, First, "moral rights" were not operative in American law at the time. For an excellent example of how the US approximates moral rights using the Lanham Act, see Kingsmen v. K-Tel International Ltd. Which isn't the only lawsuit the Kingsmen have been involved in, as you well know. Given that background, "[it] is clearly refuted simply by the fact that the cease and desist letter was issued" doesn't seem to be to be very clear at all. When you start getting into the evolving legal definitions of what is a "band", who is a "member", and who owns which bits of copyright, royalties, and trademarks, there's very little information you can glean from a single c&d.

Complicating this further is wikipedia doesn't particularly care about the legal determination anyway. Taking your example: of course there can be a new band called "Radio Head". They probably can't establish a trademark and they may have a problem keeping any money they make after Radiohead sues them, but that wouldn't prevent them from gaining enough notoriety to get their own article and make several albums.

Ultimately, that illustrates what we're doing here. It's not up to us to determine if there was only ever one band called the Kingsmen, or two bands, or one band and a cover band, and who the members were and who owned what. We just summarize what's in reliable sources. Where the sources are silent, we should be as well. Where the sources are contradictory or incomplete, our articles should note the contradiction and not fill in the gaps. (And even this isn't the full story. WP:OR exists on a continuum, with some areas being verboten, some accepted, and a large, evolving gray area in the middle. But that's another sermon for another time....)

Anyway, I think I've exhausted my interest in the topic. Thanks for the excellent conversation.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a good thing I relied on WP sourcing policies instead of my half-baked understanding of IP law, especially as implemented in the US.

Fortunately the World Cup will be over soon, and I can catch up on some sleep...

I look forward to going through the paper on "Droit Moral" when I get the chance. That looks interesting.

Thank you for the excellent conversation and references.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

FRB vote

Hi, I'm contacting everyone that contributed to the fractional reserve talk on banks as intermediaries because I added a little vote request as to how to proceed. Your input would be most welcome. Reissgo (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Dhammapada addition

Would you please explain why you reverted the Dhammapada page addition comparing Solomon and The Buddha's proverbs? Thanks. DavidBenjamin (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)DavidBenjamin

The material you added appears to be something you compiled by yourself, and that is not permitted on Wikipedia, according to the policy WP:NOR. If you know of a WP:RS that makes such a comparison, then please post the citation to the source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The reverted material was not "compiled by yourself," but rather was compiled by referencing only those verses of the Dhammapada that appear in the Excerpts section of the Wikipedia article. In that process, no Dhammapada verses were added or deleted. The source of each verse of Solomon was fully documented by a footnote citing which book and verse of Solomon's writings was quoted, and which translation of the Bible was the source of that translation. DavidBenjamin (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)DavidBenjamin

I don't have time to argue with you. Read the policy I took the time to point out, and if you still don't have a clue, try asking @Dougweller:. If you restore the material it will be deleted again and if you edit war I will report you. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rule of Law reverts

You need to read the summaries and give the benefit of the doubt that even IF its 'just' and 'IP' edit, that the editor had some knowledge of the subject to care enough to make the edits and leave the summary. If you want to take it to the Talk Page BEFORE reverting, do so and we'll talk. But don't waste my time with your 'opinion' and wikipedish term dropping before you actually know what you are talking about 220.238.58.36 (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the way it works, and that is why I provided the link to WP:BRD. Your claims are extremely exaggerated and based on a single article from a student edited law journal. If that is the best you can do as far as sourcing, there is a serious NPOV/DUE WEIGHT problem with that material.

Bring it up at Talk, I don't have more time to spend on this immediately.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Move War Being Taken to AN, where it belongs

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Could you have a look at the mentioned article one author seems to go ballistic lately. I hesitate to say anything at this point. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: I agree. It's getting hard to keep up with the activities of two editors, and now they are repeating patterns of discussion we've already had because they didn't like the consensus. Even when the sources are reasonable, they are sometimes not represented accurately, and the underlying theme is advocacy. I left a warning about advocacy on one editor's Talk page, and seem to recall leaving a warning in the past for another editor (maybe the same one). It appears likely that an Arbcom case is probably on the horizon for that article. They do not seem amenable to abiding by consensus, etc., so there is probably no other way to get some relief from having to trace through hundreds of incremental edits (not to mention the wholesale promotional restructuring) to maintain the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have done my best to keep articles on the issue neutral. In case of articles concerning SGI and Ikeda though … what could one say, I keep my own edits to a bare minimum. Some editors prove critics right though. If there are any means to finally freeze the articles to a bare minimum go ahead. This should, if possible, be overlooked by neutral editors – I am not one of them though … I made it clear more than once where I am coming from. At this point I am happy to keep an eye on general issues concerning Nichiren Buddhism. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I always made clear that I not entirely neutral on the issue bur reading upon Bodhisattvas of the Earth just now. This all scares me. One might say I am single minded on an issue but this all is way beyond neutrality, sorry.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Cite 53

Thank you for the edit. I'm not a regular enough editor to bother with a login, though I've done some minor edits under various IPs. I guess any article like that is probably ripe for vandalizing. I hope this isn't against general etiquette. Thanks again. 73.173.238.218 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice - disruptive editing being reported

Ubikwit:

I looked at the “Advocacy” page, and I thank you for referring me. It points pout, first, that advocacy can also be negative advocacy, which I think we all know is rampant on the Soka Gakkai page. While some editors have been attempting to balance this, you have been advocating hard for the status quo.

It also mentions the necessity of using the Talk page, which you seem reluctant to do; points out that “expertise is not advocacy”, and points out that the “truth” of a statement (I imagine, for example, something like that “The Soka Gakkai was once connected to Nichiren Shoshu”) is not determinate, but we must “synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge.” Which is what I have been trying to do.

You, on the other hand, have absolutely refused to acknowledge consensus, and have not responded with any sort of real argument concerning the points in favor of the “independent Soka Gakkai” point of view, and have not acknowledged that that POV has credible sources to support it. I am not the only one who has asked you to discuss before reverting, and you have chosen to ignore all of us.

No one is trying to deny the past association with Nichiren Shoshu. It’s covered quite extensively. But to maintain that that is the key to the Soka Gakkai identity is becoming ludicrous. There are many sources documenting Soka’s originality and distinction from the sect it has not been associated with for over 20 years.

Last time I undid your revert, I asked you once more to discuss before reverting again. You did not. So I will not ask again, but am going to report your disruptive editing.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Pointless ANI has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_on_Soka_Gakkai_page. My past experiences trying to report Safwan makes me feel strongly that no one is going to look at this, unless if we, like, prod people with hot pokers on IRC or something. Shii (tock) 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhh its old safwan behind this? Is that not sock puppetry then?--Catflap08 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to a separate issue where I reported his talk page spam several times and never got a response. Shii (tock) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable deletions on Soka Gakkai talk page.

Could you have a look at the conversation mentioned? Puzzles me a bit. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I gather that you meant on the Ikeda page. I posted some Japanese text on the incident from Yanatori. It seems to be more of the same whitewashing type stuff, as we saw with respect to the "brainwashing" quotes. Yanatori also compares them to fascists in the text I posted, if there were any questions about a source for that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I include a quote from Montgomery. This whole issues does drag on for ages … is there no means to get the articles better protected? I might sound paranoid but it appears to me that at times I talk to the same person just using different user names at times. I cherish Wikipedia big times and it actually was a means for me to get over some issues and do research, but the articles are an example how some issues just slip the radar.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Translation

Hi, as you seem to be Japanese speaking could you translate the pages (roughly) that Shii has included on the SGI page at 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Link?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soka_Gakkai#SGI-USA_has_different_teachings_from_SG_Japan --Catflap08 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your AE appeal

Hi, you posted an apeeal at AE that came out wrong. I've pasted the structure for you below, you can fill it out here and move it to AE when it's ready.  Sandstein  11:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll do that later when I have the time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I assume that you are not waiting for me to re-notify Deskana, correct? If you have any other questions, feel free to fire away.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – (Add your signature here)

Sanction being appealed

<Text>

Administrator imposing the sanction

Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ubikwit

<Your text>

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

DRV nomination

Hi, Ubikwit. This is just to let you know that I have nominated Buddhist humanism at WP:DRV. Please feel free to comment. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Exemption to arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi Ubikwit, in accordance with this AE request, you are permitted to edit the following articles for three months. After the three months you should appeal your topic ban to AE again. Articles you may edit:

• Settler colonialism
• States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
• State of Palestine
• ICC Cases
• Political status of the Palestinian territories
• International recognition of the State of Palestine
• Taxation in the Palestinian territories

Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Callanecc. OK, thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: There hasn't been much going on in the news in relation to the articles corresponding to the exemption. I've made a couple of edits on one article that I was active on before the TB, but that is about all I see to do at the moment. I was wondering if I could file some sort of motion to add an article or two? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to file another appeal, honestly I'd suggest just working on those articles. I'd strongly suggest trying to get them to a better standard, none of them are above C-class for example (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment). By getting them up to even just B-class will show that you are able to follow guidelines, work with other editors (including when there is disagreement). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neoconservatism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Decline and the Politics of Deflection, Jeanne Morefield, Oxford University press, 2014, p. 73]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=WCtpaW6UaGEC&pg=PT41&dq=Frederick+Kagan,+

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

I miss the days when we were editing TPm-related articles; we seemed to agree and collaborate much more than we disagreed, if I recall correctly. Recently, however, you appear to be a completely different editor. Regarding our dispute over your recent additions to the Harris article, we really should try to discuss what we're doing, and come up with solutions. We seem to be talking past each other right now, and path we're on doesn't go anywhere good. Let me know your thoughts on this. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, collaborating is easy when you share the same POV, but when not, it's more challenging.

I don't have any problem with your trying to present Harris in a favorable light, I just don't want to see the critical material removed--unless there really is a BLP/copy vio. Note that there are now at least two secondary sources covering the three opinion pieces, and Greenwald is a high-profile individual. Did you watch the Munk debate he particpated in against Robert Kagan and the former director of the CIA?

You should note that Greenwald quotes a comment that David Frum made about him, and Frum is a speech-writing neocon pundit from the Bush administration. What Chomsky and others are indirectly commenting on is the support the New Atheists are providing to war mongering policy in the ME, and material has just been added to that articles page about the shootings in NC.

Incidentally, I've been having a hard time with some of the same editors from the TPm articles regarding the pages related to neoconservatism and the associated individuals.

And as for cognitive science and philosophy, I don't have a problem with him as a "neuroscientist", and many of the sources refer to him as such. But I've had some exposure to philosophy and cognitive science, and what he has published to date doesn't measure up; I consider it to be a popularization. The RfC stands, so that's not a problem, but the attention that Harris' statements on Islam along with the other two prominent Atheists are likely to draw further commentary.

Note that Dawkins, although he has made a lot of comments on Islam, recently admitted that he hadn't read the Koran. I think I've posted a link to the article in which that appears, where his answer was that you didn't have to read "Mein Kampf" to understand Nazism. Inflammatory comments like that are going to draw attention when you are a professor in the sciences at Cambridge.

At any rate, if you have access to Harris' books in which he talks about Islam, I would definitely try to write the "On Islam" section, and then we can figure out how to break up the Criticism section maybe, placing statement under the respective writings. It might be possible to situate a fair amount of the criticism as falling within Harris' association with New Atheism, as a movement of sorts, but some of the criticism is fairly serious--advocating "denying rights", etc. One has to find those statements and see if it is possible to situate them against some relevant context serving as an ameliorating background, if one feels they are being misrepresented, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My "point of view" regarding Harris is simply whatever impression reliable sources have left on me — nothing more. Never met the guy; never purchased any of his books or attended any of his talks. I have read some of the discussions on his website, and I've just recently borrowed a book from the library to check some things, but I don't have a dog in this race. As for describing someone as an "Islamophobe", I've got no problem with that if it is a fact supported by high quality reliable sources. Just look at the Steven Emerson talk page, and the related discussions (BLPN - Steven Emerson) — (BLPN - Steven Emerson part 2) — (RSN - Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article) as an example. But in that case, there are multiple high quality academic sources describing Emerson as Islamophobic. The sources produced against Harris don't even come close, by comparison - a few guys upset that he attacks Islam (duh - he's an atheist), and they try to label it as "islamophobia". And a couple news sources pointing at the squabble and chuckling (probably because the Kardashians weren't doing things that week). Is he extra critical of Islam, especially after world events over the past couple decades? Of course. Does he criticize Muslims, or Arabs, or even Islamists? No more than any other religious adherent. It's the religion he focuses on, and he does so rather unapologetically. Are there any peer-reviewed publications describing Harris in these terms, and you are keeping them hidden from me?

Regarding "filling out the On Islam section", I've already started. I'd prefer to find some quality secondary sources evaluating his work, rather than try to summarize it myself from his books. I'm working on it. My biggest beef with the sentence you keep inserting into the lead is it doesn't summarize the content. It only gives half the story: "He's received criticism, including Islamophobia..." What criticism exactly, and what was Harris (or other 3rd parties) response? Perhaps you left out half of the summary because you aren't clear on what it is? If so, please read at least these three items to get a fuller picture of the situation:

[1] - [2] - [3]

Harris takes defamation pretty seriously, it seems. All the more reason for us to "get it right", as WP:BLP instructs us to do. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding biographies of living persons, 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 Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll acknowledge this notification, and note that although I've been accused of BLP violations, no thread at BLP/N has substantiated those claims, and I have made an effort to understand the policy in conjunction with issues that have been raised along the way.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Joke

Hi, Ubikwit. I see you just inserted this into the Sam Harris Talk page:

And the other sections were created because Xenophrenic deleted the "Criticisms" section so that he could exclude viewpoints expressed in reliably sourced material that he didn't like.

While you know that is bullshit, and I know that is bullshit, some of the other editors reading that page may think you are being serious. As I explained in the edit summaries and on the Talk page, I removed only the header per WP:NPOV and WP:CSECTION, but preserved every bit of the content in that section. I just incorporated into the material that was being criticized. Nothing was "excluded". Please strike or delete that sentence. Thanks in advance. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the Chomsky quote and the stuff from those other "jokers"?

I suppose you have a minor point in that it wasn't until this edit that you actually outright started deleting material instead of simply obfuscating and rendering it unintelligible. I've modified my statement accordingly.

Feel free to let me know of any refcite errors or the like before deleting sourced content on the basis of formatting and other minor concerns.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:00, 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not corrected your error. You have merely substituted one false statement for another false statement:

And the other sections were created because Xenophrenic deleted the "Criticisms" section so that he could exclude degrade and obfuscate viewpoints expressed in reliably sourced material that he didn't like[50], starting with the Chomsky quote, and simply deleting the material altogether after I added the Political section to accommodate his removal of the Csection[51].

I now believe you were not simply mistaken, but are instead posting false accusations out of malice. Don't bother redacting. I'm going to be handling this administratively; it gives me no pleasure to have to add this to a growing compilation for presentation in the next Arb discussion on your sanctions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Be my guest.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ubikwit. I got your notification that you are trying to open an Arbitration case. As I was reading your statements, I came across this false assertion of yours:

• Note that is was Xenophreic that first brought the possibility of arbitration up[35].

Was this in response to @DGG:, as the first commenting Arbitrator? I certainly did not bring up the possibility of arbitration. Please re-read what I did say (in the paragraph just above this) and you will see that I brought up the possibility of me appearing at your next Arbitration Enforcement Appeal of Sanctions discussion with evidence that you have not improved your problematic editing. To which you responded: "Be my guest." Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Palgrave Macmillan history book

This might be getting a little far afield from the RS noticeboard, so I'll comment here, but yes, I agree. To me the book looks like a reliable source that makes a strong case about historical facts and methodology. However, that said, it still may not be convincing to supporters of the arguments. If so, then we can see that to that extent the arguments didn't depend on history after all. They were moral arguments, not historical ones. But to get that far is a valuable contribution and well worth doing because it advances our understanding of the nature of the arguments. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Something along those lines, basically, but he source is of the highest quality as a peer-reviewed academic publication. We'll have to wait to see how it is received, but as was mentioned on the RS/N thread, it is a specialized topic.

The way I see the discussion at this point is that historians are challenging the misappropriation of history in order to advance some agenda, be it moral, political, metaphysical, or a combination thereof.

What is crucial to remember is that Harris publishes books aimed at a popular audience, not scholars, and they aren't peer-reviewed--he is not trained in history and political science, but his writings make spurious claims relevant to both fields. So far no sources from academics in the relevant fields have been presented in support any of the contentious statements others have addressed.

It's not simply a question of categorization of arguments as related to either 'morality' or 'history', because those are also interrelated in this context. One aspect is the claims pertaining to science and morality[4], and the questions that Lears raises regarding relativism and pragmatism versus an ahistorical universalism in the form of a strain of positivism he characterizes as a "metaphysic". That long review is important because it is a comprehensive examination of three books and the interrelatedness and contradictions of those books.

Lears isn't defending religion per se, nor is Chomsky, they are simply raising the point that something being presented as "rational discourse", with some recourse to history, actually has a metaphysical dimension with political ramifications that should be brought to the fore.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Harris is a neuroscientist, right? For some reason they feel qualified to comment on everything. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case declined

Hi Ubikwit, this is a note to let you know that the Sam Harris BLP Arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris

Hello. You undid a small correction I made to the Sam Harris article just now (a previous editor had written a single bracket instead of a full link to India, i.e. "India]" instead of India. I am tempted to fix this again but it is my understanding that you reverted it to the consensus text, which suggests to me that this text contains a typo.

Machine Man (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I searched the text for India, and the only mention was properly bracketed (under the "Early life and education" setion). I think that the reversion of "the consensus text" was what restored the typo. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Sam Harris

Your recent editing history at Sam Harris (author) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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.

• Sam Harris (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clear edit warring: 10:48, 25 February 2015 + 14:49, 25 February 2015 + 03:49, 26 February 2015. The edit summary referring to a consensus is not correct—consensus is against your edits. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been making adding sources and making incremental modifications and improvements to the text in accordance with the policy-compliant consensus on the Talk page that Xenophrenic has been flaunting.

This notice wouldn't cause me to raise an eyebrow if it weren't for the fact that through 30 minutes have passed, I see that you've failed to warn Xenophrenic in the same manner. Now I'm sure that THAT was just an oversight on your part, and your going to proceed to issue that warning pronto presto, aren't you, Johnny.

Matters are further complicated by the fact that you have expressed your support for the POV being pushed by Xenophrenic at the article Talk page, and alleged that the reliably published statements of academics were "extreme". One could see this one-sided warning in the edit war you allege to be an attempt at intimidation aimed at obtaining an undue advantage for your side in a content dispute, Johnny. You see, Johnny, it takes more than party to edit war.

Accordingly, I want you to stay away from this Talk page, Johnny.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Believing that your edits are policy compliant does not provide an edit-war exemption. If there really is a consensus on the talk page, the correct procedure is to let someone else do the revert rather than continuing reverting yourself. Xenophrenic does not seem to have made three reverts in 24 hours, unlike the diffs shown above. A suggestion: when it is obvious that a case is going to end up at ANI (or when it's already there!), it is a good idea to not attempt ridicule of another editor. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You have failed to acknowledge that the edits I made were not simply "reverts", but partial reverts accompanied by expansion per Talk discussion, unlike the last revert by Xenophrenic, in which he ignored Talk discussion.

More specifically, I introduced another peer-reviewed academic publication for "prejudice", as an objection had been raised to "bias", because I agree with that text as well as that the sentence at the end of the paragraph didn't belong there, etc. Another editor has affirmed that they agree with that addition and the current text.

OK, so you warned me based on three "technical" reverts, which Xenophrenic didn't make, because he's trying to fly under the radar. No problem I apologize for offending you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I didn't notice until now that you actually asserted that consensus was against my edits. I suggest that you examine the scenario a little more closely, pain in the neck though it be. This revert by Xenophrenic[5], for example, doesn't mention torture at all, which was raised by Collect, but only because I didn't notice that the language introduced by Jonotrain here didn't directly attribute that to the critics. I simply removed all of the sources and the mention of torture altogether after Collect objected, because that was only one issue, and not the most prominent. The other two issues involved an implied and explicit consensus between Jonotrain and me, with Collect not weighing in to support Xenophrenic's POV pushing against that. In case you missed my last post an AN/I, I describe the specifics in this Talk thread.

I'd be interested to hear your assessment of that.

In the meantime, Xenophrenic made yet another revert (as described in the thread), after the statement regarding consensus by Jonotrain, made in the same post that he states "prejudice" is acceptable to him instead of "bias".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PNAC rfc posted @ NPOV Noticeboard

FYI I posted the rfc and a recap of the debate here since it seems clear that greater input is needed.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1RR Warning

I strongly suggest you self-revert right now. Violating 1RR on issues pertaining to the Arab–Israeli conflict can result in a temporary editing ban. --Precision123 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

I urgently suggest you self-revert. Collect (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1. [6] sequence ending 08:32 2 March
2. [7] 08:52 2 March
3. [8] 12:08 2 March
4. [9] 12:14 2 March
5. [10] 16:28 2 March

Aren't you playing it a little loose with the definition of a "revert"?

The top diff is a copy edit.

Are suggesting that the last edit was a revert because I took out a source that I put in and copy edited the text?

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

AN/EW now filed. You best course would have been a self-revert, but you have done this too many times now, and editing on an article in the I/P area was extremely unwise as well. Collect (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Be my guest.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Project for the New American Century. 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.  Swarm ^X 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Though I was surprised by the warning I received about the last diff cited in the complaint resulting in this block, I understand that the back-and-forth between Collect and me on the PNAC article/talk pages was becoming disruptive, as per Fyddlestix comment about the "tone" of the discussion, which was reasonable. The block was successful in enabling the article to be substantially improved, a result with which I am happy. I think that the block has served its purpose. Regarding the interaction ban brought up at AN/I, I have made an effort, continually, to engage Collect in a collegial manner and edit collaboratively, but generally feel that I have been rebuffed when doing so, sometimes with an outpouring of emotionally imbued consternation and innuendo. As stated below, I've previously requested a one-way IBAN, which I continue to believe is warranted, but don't intend to pursue the matter beyond a reasoned examination of some diffs, etc., with respect to WP:HOUNDING at present. I'd like to get back to editing and participating in the discussion at AN/I. Should I encounter Collect again during the course of normal editing, I will continue to engage him with respect to the sources in a collegial manner with the goal of collaboration, not confrontation, and redouble my efforts not to lose my patience. Meanwhile, I will also try to bear in mind that in the case of an "outpouring of emotionally imbued consternation and innuendo", ignoring that is probably the recommended course of (in)action.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

procedural decline; the block has expired. Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Greetings and salutations

@Fyddlestix: Not at all, thanks for participating in that thread as well. I'm glad you showed up at the PNAC article, and appreciate that you take care in examining the sources thoroughly. I haven't had much time lately, and have actually fallen a little behind in my real life work obligations, so I won't be seeking an unblock, at least for a couple of days until I've caught up, at any rate.
If you have time to continue working on the article, the more you get accomplished in the interim the better.
I appreciate the after comment regarding the emerging consensus as well. I didn't think that last edit would trigger a 3RR report. I suppose I should query an admin on the technicality ('changing a single word another editor added is a revert') of that, even though it wasn't a direct factor in this block. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI-related

@MastCell: This remind you of anyone[11]?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@MastCell: Thanks. @Fyddlestix: Check this AN/I thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Note that when I queried Vertrag[12], he admitted that he was a "sock"(alternate account), but refused to clearly declare those accounts, instead accusing me of making an adhominem. He posted an "alternative account master" user box on his UT page[13] in relation to this diff posted in the preceding edit. The meaning of the diff is unclear, as it seems that he was claiming to be the "sock master" of the IP, but an IP isn't an alternative account, while Vertrag himself claimed to be a sock in response to my query on his UT page. One minute after adding the userbox, he deleted the diff.[14]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:30, 14:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@MastCell:@Vanjagenije: Correction, I see that the user box seems to have been posted to his User page, but that there was already a redirect there to his UT page, and then deleted both the box as well as the link two days ago (March 3)[15], perhaps coinciding with my current block. At any rate, the user box game would seem to demonstrate a similar disposition toward craftiness as that exhibited by Is not a did with respect to Wikipedia markup, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: I'm not sure why MastCell didn't block the alternative account of an indefinitely blocked user, but that is secondary. I primarily wanted to be sure that you noted the above observations. I presume that Vertrag has refused to divulge the alternative accounts in accord with WP:ALTACCN, but he reacted with hostility to being queried about his alternative accounts. I've noted the policy:

Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so.

But it seems curious that a user that has been indefintely blocked can edit from yet another alternative account that does not appear to be his main account. I noted that MastCell left the following statement when blocking[16] Is not a,

It is a violation of site policy to use an alternate account (like this one) to edit combatively on contentious topics while avoiding scrutiny on your main account (see WP:SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH). You may edit using your main account (provided it is not subject to pre-existing sanctions) but you may not continue to use this alternate account in this manner.

I'd pinged MastCell upon noticing the obvious similarities in the edits of "Dear ODear ODear", before @Fyddlestix: opened the SPI, with MastCell then declaring the relationship between "Dear ODear ODear" and Is not a. The use of such an alternative account to edit within the same topic area as the block and in a similar manner (with another SPI being launched) would seem to represent a form of WP:EVASION. This is all a bit confusing in terms of policy. Note that I myself had filed an SPI on Is not a, which was closed with a checkuser having been denied. Has Vertrag in fact notified functionaries regarding his alternative (or main) account(s)?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The SPI has been closed, but for closures sake here, since I had to look into this new area to me of alternative accounts, I suppose that this was the diff that Vertrag meant to post regarding his declaring of the account's status.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Question of IBAN, clarification on reverts

@Swarm: Regarding the question of an IBAN, I had requested a one-way IBAN imposed on Collect in the AN/I thread [17] in which the following comment was made. [18] Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit]
AE filing on Collect’s conduct regarding Joe Klein BLP[19]
Apparently, excluding RS material from a BLP is not conduct falling under the DS for BLPs, but the editing involved in the filing was characterized as tendentious. The article settled down after Collect could not plausibly stretch his tendentious reasoning so as to exclude Klein from being categorized as ethnically Jewish, and the material was added to the article. It wasn't worth pursuing that further at the time, as the primary goal of improving the article had basically been achieved.
Currently, it has become more apparent that Collect has been violating WP:FOUNDWP:HOUND. He has admitted to following me to the PNAC article, and he did the same on Joe Klein, making misrepresentations of both sources as well as my edits in a continual and disruptive fashion. The same for the Sam Harris article, in which he tried to introduce "readability" as a tactic to dismiss RS by academics, etc. He also deleted categories related to Harris being Jewish in order to attempt to exclude a source, which is indicative of his battlefield mentality, and related to his continual insinuation that I am antisemitic, even though he has now officially declared that I am not and that he has never explicitly made the allegation. He accuses me of "demurring" with respect to BLP policy, but that is also a misrepresentation of the facts, as the relevant BLP threads show.
All in all, I have been editing in accordance with the core content policies as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. That cannot be said of Collect. A simple comparison of the Neoconservativism article before I arrived there to its current state demonstrates that I have been improving articles that were in horrendous condition, including the promotional, primary-source bloated Sam Harris BLP.
I've already tangentially mentioned some of the above-described conduct in a request for arbitration related to the Harris article, where Xenophrenic was the primary offender of core policies and Collect playing a supporting role. Collect has been the primary offender on the Neoconservatism, Joe Klein and PNAC articles, though there is a large amount of reading involved, as I have continually introduced better sources to support my edits. I think that the sheer volume and scope of the activity is something Arbcom is better suited to examine, but if you have the time and interest in such cases, by all means. I'd really prefer not to have to spend any further time on this matter, and dealing with Arbcom represents a substantial burden.

• Meanwhile, aside from the above, Collect reproduced a comment of mine[20] on his Talk page in a thread simply entitled "query" soliciting comments, with @Capitalismojo: responding with insinuations of (antisemitic) "ancient libels" that "would fit right in at a Bund meeting in the late 30s"[21].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:19, 20:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You have pinged me. The quote which he asked for comments on identified no user. The term "divided loyalties" is a hoary slur on Jews, as (almost) everyone is aware. It is a slur that was historically used against both Catholics (asserting primary loyalty to the Pope) and more commonly against Jews (primary loyalty the Jewish homeland). I find its use appalling. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Your entitled to your opinion, and I gather that you didn't understand that the thread was targeted at me.

On the other hand, it is an incontrovertible fact that you understood that the thread was targeted at me before posting here, yet you persist with the innuendo. Perhaps you should check the sources before accusing anyone of making "hoary slur[s] on Jews], because that is a personal attack insofar as it is directed at my edits. Why don't you read the Dual loyalty article, this section of the Neoconservatism article, and this section of the Joe Klein article.

Your opinion only carries so much relevance, and only with respect to the sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:12, 5 March 2015; 16:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The "dual loyalties" article says that it's use is "inherently controversial", and lays out its history much as I outlined above. My reaction to the term is the common reaction to the term and should not be viewed as a personal attack, and is not intended as such. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that to a certain extent, but you should be careful about projecting your reaction to such a widely publicized (except for on Wikipedia) controversy onto others.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request regarding "revert"

Regarding the edit war, I understand that 3RR is not the sole basis for a determination of edit warring, and don't intend to object to your reading of the situation generally speaking, though I maintain that I was editing in accord with consensus in regard to two specific points (inclusion of table, "9/11 conspiracy theory") that Collect was tendentiously contesting.
What I would like is clarification as to the reading of a "revert", per Collect's assertion related to the 'changing of a single word added by another editor', etc. In particular, with respect to the text on the policy page as well as the essay, the following edit does not seem to correspond to a revert. I've provided the entire context for evaluation with respect to aspects such as consensus, etc. Note that Collect posted the warning to my Talk after I'd notified him at NPOV/N regarding the removal of a citation in order to address his contentious claim of "conspiracy theories". He demanded that I revert that removal (of text that I had added myself), apparently in order to keep that citation as a justification for his insertion of unrelated conspiracy theory claims against consensus.
Background for this edit

1. Added Meacher [22]
2. Edit suggestion [23]
3. Agreement [24]
4. Elaboration [25]
5. From my reply to Collect at NPOV/N

   The point has already been made several times over that the academics published in peer-reviews secondary sources do not even mention conspiracy theory in conjunction with Meacher's statements on PNAC. I've removed the Guardian citation and Meacher's statements on PNAC are sourced solely to peer-reviewed secondary sources now. What other conspiracy theories, 9/11 or otherwise, remain in the article?[26]

6. Aside from deleting “Writing in the Guardian” which was text I’d added, the only deletion involved combining two sentences into one, as follows.

   Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain." According to Abelson, "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy."
   To this:
   Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain," as "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy".

7. Added single sentence paragraph with Blosche quote (same edit).
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page is becoming long. Do you want me to archive your talk page? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll handle it. I've deleted some material and will archive it later.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Note

Just to let you know about the AE matter with Cwobeel - the material had been reinserted numerous times and it lead to a month-long protection in which there was no attempt to further the discussion about the appropriateness of the material. No sooner had it been lifted did Cwobeel reinsert the material, I reverted and Cwobeel took it to BLPN. The matter was not a BLP violation as being of gross defamation or such, but repeatedly edit warring in material that was disputed by no less than four different editors while it was at BLPN. Only because it continued by Cwobeel after all the warnings and after the formal close and the specific mention by Serialjoepsycho to not take the action, did that last reinsertion by Cwobeel lead me to AE. Just wanted to clarify that for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project for the New American Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Reynolds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

List article

Please do not start coat racking on adding people marginally associated with PNAC the new list article. Right now I am trying to move the SYNTH dispute forward. Possibly it will come to an AfD discussion and a tightly constrained article with strong inclusion criteria and good sourcing will most likely pass. One that is not will likely fail. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop leveling unsubstantiated allegations at me.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Have I ever been intentionally rude to you? Jbh (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, though you included everyone from the last version of the table, which I hadn't expected, the statement

"I will be extremely disappointed if you and Collect move your battle to a new venue. We have a pretty good consensus here of who should be on the list here."

is rude, intentionally or not.

Aside from the forced title, I've already pointed out the apparent mistake about Cohen and the corresponding equivalent status of Schneider, etc. Generally speaking, RS are the basis upon which inclusion should be determined, not arbitrary positions among editors. The stuff about SYNTH has been nonsense from the beginning, and of course, the issue again, is sourcing. I have presented a couple of sources recently that list more than twenty, I believe, eighteen in a footnote to the text listing others that is not available as a preview on google books.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if you saw that as rude, it was not intended as such. As I mentioned on the talk page I felt it a measured response to your 'include everyone associated with PNAC "no ifs, ands, or buts"'. I am sure more than one editor has pointed out to you that your and Collect's interactions are toxic on this article - I do understand your frustration but, to an extent, I understand his as well. I apologize if I misconstrued the situation. I tend to get less wordy and more direct as I become comfortable working with people, that can make me more blunt as well.

You are correct, the SYNTH claim is silly. My concern is sourcing, in particular sourcing beyond what got the ~'List of people who signed a letter or attended an event' in the article at first and your statement made me fear that was where you were going. I was also concerned about using people who had only signed one letter. Your Energy and Empire draws a direct link between those signers and positions in the Administration so my concern arising from that Iraq letter is greatly diminished. As to the forced title I have no objection to something like 'Members of PNAC involved in the Bush Administration'. My concern is that the in the current environment we would likely end up in a month long debate about who were 'Members of PNAC' and what constituted the 'Administration'. To be clear, I have no objection to including Presidential Advisors in the list. Jbh (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't want to be blamed for the situation with Collect, and have tried to avoid responding to him where possible.

Your strategy of making a list article further rendered the SYNTH claim irrelevant, over and above its inapplicability in the first place.

I renamed the article and categorized it according to people by employer, which in this case seems the most accurate category. They are PNAC people that worked for the Bush administration.

The Iraq war problem is probably the standout issue regarding PNAC, and that's where I find the significance of the Clinton letter, which is also the case with the sources.

Sorry for the misunderstanding caused by the "no if ands or buts" comment, I just meant according to the sources. Note that the "strong" characterization had already become a target...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, all nuance is lost using talk pages... Yep, I noticed "strong" has become an issue, as has "members". Sometimes compromise is just giving someone another talking point. :)

I do understand how his policy interpretations can be frustrating. See my conversation over on his talk page about Inverted Totalitarianism last week. He is a good Wikipedia editor and his strict view of policy often brings up points others have missed. In this particular case I do admit to being unable to see it though. Jbh (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Collect makes an incisive point now and again, but generally the points where we intersect are contentious, and we're on opposite ends of the POV spectrum. Good observation about talking points! I've been trying to straighten the List article up to circumvent unnecessary discussion wasted on trivial matters so that the more central points can be taken up. I added Woolsey, for instance, since he is mentioned in that passage to which you referred. There might be a couple others that were appointed to a significant position (official/advisory), but it seems that most (if not all) are listed, and hopefully the focus can turn to fine tuning, etc., instead of debating the legitimacy of the list based on superfluous issues. I'd rather not spend much more time and energy on it myself.

I did follow that interesting discussion of Wolin, incidentally, to some degree. You and Viriditas made good, reasonable arguments. And incidentally, Chalmers Johnson supported Wolin's analysis, but you have to read the book review to the very last sentence, which is where he states that. Ciao.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of BLPN discussion

An issue you may be involved in is being discussed at BLPN. Jbh (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

See also

Signing a letter no more makes a person a "member" of an organization than it can make a horse's tail into a leg.

[27] "The other ‘‘listed’’ groups cited in the report were International Workers Order (Goldberg was alleged to be one of the group’s ‘‘representatives’’ in Chicago), the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (he reportedly ‘‘led the discussion on the anti-alien bills’’ at a 1940 conference), American Youth Congress (his name appeared on a mailing list), United Spanish Aid Committee (his name appeared on a list found in the group’s files), the National Emergency Conference (he allegedly signed ‘‘the call’’ for this 1939 conference held ‘‘in protest of legislation’’ believed to threaten ‘‘the civil rights and liberties not only of aliens but of native and naturalized Americans’’), International Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions (he reportedly made reservations at the Continental Hotel for 20 persons ‘‘expected to attend’’ the group’s 1946 convention), Russian War Relief (an unknown source charged he was ‘‘a signer of the Chicago Committee of Russian War Relief’’), and National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (an informant said his name was on ‘‘a list of sponsors’’ of a ‘‘national conference of all civil rights groups to be held in Washington in June, 1940’’ to establish the organization).

I trust you can see just why being listed on a "letter" does not make a person a "member" of any group. AFAICT, we do not list those "memberships" for Arthur Goldberg on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am amazed

I have a tingling sense that Letterhead organization was created just to get that cherry-picked quote in

• "with a staff of only five" whose "purpose was to write embarrassing letters to important people" that was "functionally dead" by its tenth birthday.(High, p. 488)

Much like 'Category:Organizations by number of employees' or whatever was created just to make 'Category:Organizations with five employees' in order to put PNAC in it. I smell POV, not sure about COI, but POINTy POV for sure. Jbh (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be, I'll have to check the source.

Meanwhile, note that critics of the PNAC, particularly by Stephen Walt, have used the same characterization in another context (transition from PNAC to FPI). See the sources for the last sentence in this section of the main article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I checked the source, and I see what you are getting at, but it has to be remembered that Wikpipedia doesn't relay on what groups say about themselves or how they constitute themselves (to avoid scrutiny of members, for example). There are two points: first, the paper describes the neocons as being "organizationally adept" at creating "ad hoc organizations", which PNAC is describes as; second, "staff" are not the same as members, and regardless that the group says it only has five employees, most sources refer to PNAC as a think tank, not a "letthead organizations". This is where RS serves to neutralize self-serving modes of self-presentation and the like, because editors have to rely on the statements of experts that have examined such organizations and their operations as well as modus operandi closely, and heed their conclusions as authoritative secondary sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what I found curious is that the editor who kept trying to add PNAC to 'Category:Organizations with five employees' and tried no less than five times to insert the above quote into the PNAC article, created both categories and Letterhead organization to minimize PNAC. My concern is that this kind of 'building the back story' is a PR trick. Maybe, I am just paranoid, probably so. I guess I am just overly sensitive to the 'five employees' claim since chasing it is the first time I ever got to 3RR. Jbh (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt, because there seems to be a preemptive strategical dimension to what you've described given the ongoing discussion at AfD. I didn't catch those category edits so I'll have to go back and check it out.

Fortunately, the vast majority of RS don't agree with that pretense. But it makes one wonder where such motivation could come from.

It seems that ASW may be right though that we should forge a name that neutralizes the otherwise unfounded criticisms.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

reversal on the Due Process Clause page

Hey, you reversed my edit on the due process clause article and I'm confused as to why. The section I removed was focused on a particular theory that a particular statute violated the due process clause. Given the number of such theories and such statutes it seems inappropriate to give this one that much prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandreZani (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@AlexandreZani: Sorry for the delay. It seemed well sourced and notable. The rationale that there are other notable and disputes not mentioned does not seem to be a grounds for removing such material.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I would argue it is not well-sourced. There are two articles: one from the Kansas City Star which now returns a 404 and one from the Atlantic. ( http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/ ) The article in the Atlantic is written by somebody who is neither a lawyer nor some other kind of legal expert. I could not find any citations in that article by legal experts saying that the bill violates the Due Process clause. It also cites no case saying that the NDAA violates the Due Process clause. While I may agree that some readings of the statute are in contravention of the 5th Amendment, I don't think the article can be used to argue anything other than "some person said that the NDAA violates the due process clause." Setting aside the quality of the sources, I took a look at other articles regarding clauses of the Constitution and I can see no equivalent. The closest is on the Commerce Clause page where the case regarding the PPACA is mentioned, but that was a national case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court, not merely the opinion of some journalist. I am going to delete that section again. I think that if you want to add a section to the NDAA article mentioning the facts at hand, that would be a much more appropriate location. AlexandreZani (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@AlexandreZani: OK, thanks for explaining the sourcing problems.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Terror and Territory

I actually have that book. I would not have thought to use it on PNAC. I have read sections for RL purposes but US policies are not my area of concern. The section at the front does indeed look like it would be a good source for the PNAC article in particular how it discusses PNAC and neocon ideas of hegemony as applied to the US GWOT. Jbh (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's helpful. It seems that he may indirectly address the "letterhead organization" angle, too.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Characterize

"Characterize" is often too strong, e.g. with Kagan. Try to use "describe" or a similar verb. Dear0Dear 17:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need your inane patronizing advice. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You are being quoted with out notice

Here Jbh (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,- MrX 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom statement word limit

Hi Ubikwit

Thanks for commenting in the Collect Arbcom case. I just wanted to let you know that without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words (Word Count Tool). (See the large pink box at the top of the WP:RFAR page). Your statement is more than 2½ times the limit. - MrX 14:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I imagine you're right, but there are extenuating circumstances, and I don't think I should change that unless officially asked to by the Committee.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Rather than start a new section, could you please remove the label (trolling) you used to describe MONGO's editing, it's just inflaming the situation further than it needs to be. Regarding the above, we're discussing statement lengths on the mailing list at the moment. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I'd mistakenly presumed that was commonly used shorthand to describe such behavior on pages addressing misconduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit. Following from my word limit comment here - I dont care about it for the case request, as the case has been accepted so further posting there is irrelevant.

But in the cases proper, please note:

• you are welcome to post evidence in one or both cases; and
• the cases have linked subjects but are otherwise independent, so the word limit starts afresh with each case.

But please also note:

• that we will be enforcing the word limits for everyone, so you may have to restrict the length of what you post.

The Committee can grant word limit extensions on request. However those who post really long material and are unable/unwlling to trim it after reminders, may find that the clerks simply off the all the excess words.

Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus. OK, thanks for the note. I will adopt a wait and see approach regarding the evidence phase, and probably only post specific diffs, etc., in response to any evidence posted against me. One reason for that is that the OP and others should be able to cover a significant amount of the Collect case, where I hope that basically reiterate some of the statement from this request, linking to the previous arbitration request as well as a few ANI/threads and pointy RfC's. The other case could be significantly more complicated, but it remains to be seen. In any case, I will abide by the word limit. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and please don't take this as a suggestion that you are likely to be more wordy than average. It's just that you're the only one to flag word limit issues so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't take it that way. To clarify, let me add that aside from the recent request for arbitration that I filed involving Collect that was declined and raised in this case by another editor, there were the vexatious claims being made by the re-appearing SPA that has now been indeffed by the Committee. Since he was the primary editor seeking to invert the request into a case addressing my conduct, I'm less worried about having to spend an unduly large amount of time refuting spurious claims. The other claims have, for the most part, already been addressed, as that is the practice I have tried to implement going forward with respect to conduct that is potentially subject to DR.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Small Google books question

Hi, Is there a reason you use Google books Japan for refs rather than US? for example. source and this source

It think we can have the same refs if we change book.google.co.jp to books.google.com. But if there is a reason to use Japan I'm ok with it. I just find it easier to use the refs when they point at the english site. I can't read the Japanese prompts and controls that surround the frame of the book text. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in Japan. Feel free to change the co.jp to .com, as appropriate. My browser just goes there by default.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that makes sense. It's kind of minor. I just wondered and didn't really want to change any to English if it was important. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got a mail

Hello, Ubikwit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Sorry, not interested. I've discussed the matter briefly above.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note regarding your statement

Ubikwit, Hi, you included something in your Collect ARBCOM request statement regarding me that is incorrect. You said that I was a party to the Tea Party movement case. I was not, nor did I participate. I have made less than a dozen edits to TPM article in all the years I've been editing. You may have been confusing the Tea Party ArbComm Case with the TeaParty previous moderated discussion. I participated (!voted) at that admin-lead effort to solve seemingly intractable differences. In that discussion 2,301 edits were made by 35 different editors. I made 5.

Given the minor involvement there, you may have just confused me with some other editor, in any event it is an easily checked matter of record that I was not a party to the Tea Party Case. I would deeply appreciate you removing that misstatement. Thank you for your help and consideration. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing that out. I may be confusing you with someone else.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: I tried, but didn't realize that it's already a closed page, basically.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for trying. :) Capitalismojo (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: An Arb agreed to reinstate the strike. Thanks--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Case Page

The header to the arbitration case page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others contains an instruction, "Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk." Your striking of a comment has been reverted. Please do not edit the arbitration case page. If you wish to request that the arbitrators authorize an edit to that page, you may make that request on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry about that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence

Hi Ubikwit, your evidence is over the evidence length limit of 1000 words (and 100 diffs). Please trim your evidence so that it is in compliance with the size limits. Thank you. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) OK, done.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like somebody needs a hug

Bring it in big guy, LOL :-) 24.1.205.154 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was glad that the troll gone, and felt that he should know that. He had been indefinitely blocked.[28] --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello Ubikwit, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 April

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 Fascism 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) 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Kenji and the Kokuchukai

Hey, sorry if I have come off a bit gruff on the talk page. When I say I don't want to discuss the Kokuchukai with you, I mean I don't want to continue cluttering up the Miyazawa Kenji talk page with general discussion about his relationship with the group, which is unlikely to help us improve the article.

I am of course happy to have a general discussion of Kenji, the Kokuchukai and anything else with you either here or on my own talk page, and answer any questions you might have. Personally I think Kenji's relationship with the Kokuchukai was brief and peripheral; most of the sources I have checked either don't mention the group at all (despite referring to him as a devout Buddhist enraptured by the Lotus Sutra), mention his taking part in some activities with "a Nichiren Buddhist society", or say he "visited" the group or joined them and left.

It also might be worth noting that, among the users who believe we should mention the group in our intro, you and Sturmgewehr88 are the only ones who haven't stated on-wiki that you believe he was "more a Kokuchukai member than a Buddhist" and that he wasn't associated with any mainstream 日蓮宗 temple, something that is demonstrably false. This is not, of course, evidence that your view is equally wrong, but it should give one pause: if Kenji converted to Nichiren Buddhism before the Kokuchukai even existed, and if he helped found a mainstream Nichiren-shuu temple after the last recorded instance of him directly interacting with the Kokuchukai, and was ultimately buried in that temple, should we be defining his relationship with Nichiren Buddhism solely in terms of the Kokuchukai?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem.

This is not an issue I want to dwell on, either, but it does seem to me (and I gather Nishidani would agree) that there are many sources to be explored before deciding on how to describe his relationship with religion and with that organization. I would imagine you've seen this, for example, which I found a little bizarre, but that is the same author that wrote the paper on Nationalism in Ulysses... I mentioned.

I know very little about the writer and haven't read more than a couple of his poems, so I don't have an informed opinion. I would think that the relationship with Kokuchukai was fairly important though, as it seems to account for a substantial portion of his stint in Tokyo. Holt has tried to document the view that his experience proselytizing with them had a lasting impression that can be seen in his later writing, which is a minority view, from what you've said. It will be interesting to see what Nishidani uncovers.

I agree, of course, that his relationship with Kokuchukai doesn't encompass his entire relationship with Buddhism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Ubikwit, in the open American politics 2 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Lists_of_sources

I notice that you removed an item with the edit summary failed WP:V - no results for search on WUWT blog, book not available for preview). I agree that sources should support the claim, and it appears that one did not (I didn't look, I'm taking your word for it). In the same vein, I see you added two entries to the list of sources supporting the word denial, even though they actually used the term skeptic in connection with Watts or the blog. I added them to the other list, and gave you credit. I think they should be removed from the :denial" list. Would you prefer to do it, or should I, or do you think they should remain, and if so, why?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of commenting on the sources at the Talk page, so please check those. The overall context of the articles is about denialism, and Watts is a subject examined in that regard (e.g., as part of the "denial machine"), so I think denial is applicable, but agree that he (or the blog) is also described as skeptical. I think that in the case of the MediaMatters piece, which links to the blog from the term "climate skeptic", they are using his self-description on the linked-to page. Many sources put "skeptic" in quotes in such cases, but not that one.

There are two that I believe belong on both lists, and the others I think support "denial" only.

Maybe we should start a third list for sources that use the terms in a mixed and somewhat ambiguous manner.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there is value in a list that uses the terms ambiguously. I'm not jumping on this for two reasons: 1. I'm not sure how many readers are paying attention to the lists, 2. there may be other things to consider - for example I referred to WUWT in the section heading, but now thinking it should be "Watts and/or WUWT".--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably not necessary at this point.

I think it's always a good thing to find relevant sources, even if only examined in a cursory manner at first, because they sometimes become useful in unforeseen ways as discussions progress, and we are supposed to be editing on the basis of the sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

AGF and CIVILITY request

Ubikwit, I'm troubled by your recent overly aggressive colleague-bashing (directed at people other than me). (Example (edit summary) and Example) Please remember to WP:Assume good faith even when others passionately disagree with you, and remember to remain WP:CIVIL while talking about content rather than the other editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, edit conflict. I guess I've also been blessed with a blast (which I note to correct my earlier statement. I now resume my dropping of stick (unless at ANI, of course). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory on Neoliberalism

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Spumuq (talq) 12:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, you do not have consensus to put in the conspiracy theory Spumuq (talq) 08:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off, and stay off this page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• The icing on the cake was presented in this diff [29]. You were basically handed a free pass in exchange for recognizing that consensus was against you, but you insisted on battling more. There is never a time when someone opens an ANI and they can close/reclose. When you come back, if you continue down this path, you are likely looking at a topic ban via discretionary sanctions, or an extremely long block, or both. You need to rethink your methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dennis, are you following the discussion?

This comment was in an edit conflict with @Euryalus:'s comment on closing, but I'll post it here.

::NAEG, you have produced zero evidence in relation to your call for a BOOMERANG, and your comments on Talk threads that I have been involved with are less than consistent. What is your point about Prokaryotes? It seems that you see him as an adversary to your POV on climate change, but I can't say that I'm familiar with his editing. At any rate, perhaps you'd care to clarify your position related to the following.

Spumuq has been making a false claim of "conspiracy theory", which has been refuted, yet he persists while simultaneously refusing to open a thread at the FRINGE notice board. It is obviously a disruptive attempt at POV pushing based on making a false claim. I can't claim consensus in terms of numbers on the Talk page, partly due to NAEG's flip-flopping with respect to the presumed import of this comment, for which I thanked him, but the material has received support from other editors. Furthermore, the only objection NAEG made was met by the last edit I made to that article expanding the coverage by including material from another source., as per the last comment I left on the Talk page[30].

I don't intend to appeal the block.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the point about closing/reclosing, OK. But I don't understand what you are talking about regarding "recognizing that consensus was against you". Are you referring to the neoliberalism article?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It has not been «refuted» and it was on the Reliable sources noticeboard, stop lying about me, stop reverting other editors comments [31]. Spumuq (talq) 11:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ubikwit! I take great pride in fact people have a hard time pigeon-holing my views on climate change. That just tells me I'm doing a good job following WP:ARBCC#Principles. Thanks for the compliment! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, he is free to revert comments off his own talk page as long as they aren't administrative/block related during the block. And you others need to stop badgering him. My threshold for poking someone blocked on their own talk page is fairly low. If you can't engage constructively, go do something else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Spumuq: That is a lie. You never opened a thread anywhere to contest any of the sources or to seek support for the false claim of a "conspiracy theory", which was refuted by three editors, and the material restored by one other editor.

@Dennis Brown: I told Spumuq he was not welcome to comment here. Could you please inform him that I have the right to do that, and make sure that he doesn't comment again? Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ubikwit! I take great pride in fact people have a hard time pigeon-holing my views on climate change. That just tells me I'm doing a good job following WP:ARBCC#Principles. Thanks for the compliment! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm not why that makes you happy, but you are entitled to your views, however obscurantist.

The problem I have with you is your flip-flopping, making it hard to take what you say at face value, which makes collaboration difficult.