User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/007

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack (1)

Except for that one article everyone is saying that seven CIA officers, not six, died in the attack. The CIA itself stated seven died, the CIA itself. And you didn't read my comment about the error of your reference so I will explain it to you again. Your source says The suicide bomber who killed at least six Central Intelligence Agency officers, however the part of the sentance six Central Intelligence Agency officers is linked to another article as a source, and that other article states The CIA, reeling from the assassination of seven of its operatives in Afghanistan earlier this week. It was their mistake they got it wrong. Everybody is saying seven. Also, nine people died in the attack, not eight. The seven CIA officers, the Afghan security chief and the Jordanian military intelligence officer. The one American perimeter security guard that you separated from the rest so to get the number six is also considered to be CIA. Sources have stated that two Xe security guards were among the dead and sources have stated the CIA considers contractors as CIA employees thus CIA officers, the CIA itself has stated that they will be adding seven start to their memorial wall at the end of the week. I will make this correction so please do not revert me again. Thank you.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link in the source does not imply that the info has been taken from the linked article. Instead, it may well have been updated, and the linked article was just left unchanged. The ABC article is one of the most recent independently researched articles that appeared on the issue, so other article may rely on outdated information. It's noteworthy that "at least five" (i.e. not necessarily seven) stars will be placed on the CIA's Memorial Wall, according to a source. I haven't seen any reference to "nine" people killed anywhere in reliable sources. Please keep in mind that seemingly different information may refer to the same person, either because the person was described in different ways, or because some of the information is wrong. Finally, look for what kind of cover the agents had, where they were living, and what they were reportedly doing at the base, and do some math. (Keep the result out of the article, as I have done, to avoid original research or sythesis.) Please refrain from making any "correction" without obtaining consensus. File a request for comment instead, if you think a change is needed. Don't get engaged in an edit war. Cs32en 16:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the CIA considers contractors to be officers.[1], and again all major news media have been stating seven not six died, everyone, everyone, except for that one report of your, which also the day before stated seven died. It's obviously a mistake on their part. Even the CIA said seven died not six, even the CIA itself. And the number nine is based on the reports, seven CIA, one Afghan and one Jordanian, if my math is correct that is nine. Even if one of those alleged seven CIA is in the end put in the category of a simple contractor again that is six CIA officers, one US contractor, one Afghan and one Jordanian, again that's nine. A day after the attack media outlets reported nine people were killed in the attack, eight Americans and one Afghan, it has now been establiedh the eight American was in fact the Jordanian. Multiple sources outweigh one source, it's simple as that.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's WP:OR on your part. Again, don't let this become a user conduct issue. Cs32en 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war??? What's wrong with you. You haven't even started discussing the topic and you are declaring an edit war. I have not started any edit war on my part, I can list 20 source that stated seven died while you can list only one. And just so you know I have made only one revert, not three. As far as I can see you yourself made two reverts so I could warn you, hehe. Cool out buddy and talk about this in a calm maner. User conduct issue? Again, what's wrong with you. And you are avoiding the issue that you have only one source for the number six while I have 20, if you continue with this disruptive behavior which is obviously in violation of the POV rule and the three revert rule I will have no choice but to report you. Talk to me calmly before this get's out of hand.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are seeking changes to the article, so you should start a discussion. Please do this on the talk page of the article, not here. Cs32en 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All sources, except for that one of yours, state seven CIA officers died, the sources also state one Afghan security guard and one Jordanian military officer died. Do the math. If you realy want a source for the number nine here you go [2] happy now? The source says eight Americans and one Afghan, that one American was later identified to be the Jordanian. I can find a few more that stated nine for you. And since you want more up to date sources stating seven and not six how about this, your source for six is dated January 2, here is this one also dated January 2 stating seven died [3], and one more dated January 3 (so more up to date than yours) stating again that seven died [4]. Also, here is one more dated TODAY that says seven died [5]. In addition one of these ref identifies the eight American previously reported as the Jordanian. Need I go on?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way where does it say on Wikipedia that I need permision on the discussion page to correct a mistake with a well referenced and sourced edit? 50 sources stating seven died outweigh one source stating six. My edit is well sourced and referenced, I do not need your permision.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What? No replies?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Daily Record source, dated December 31, 2009, talks about eight U.S. civilians, an information that was found to be incorrect. Please stop presenting bogus pieces of evidence to support your claims. Cs32en 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you even listened to what I said? Bogus? Again, what's wrong with you? The source says eigth Americans AND THE AFGHAN that's nine, the eight American was in reality later identified as the Jordanian that much is clear. And you have not commented on the THREE refs, that are more UP-TO-DATE than your's is, that stated SEVEN NOT SIX OFFICERS DEAD. You want me to put you 50 more links that stated seven officers dead? You see only what you want to see. If you will not comment on the new more up-to-date refs that I have provided to you I will revert you again and report you to an administrator. But, unlike you obviously, I am of a cool head and will not revert you imediatly I will give you a day to think about this and will get back to you tomorrow, but don't think you got rid of me. You have been hostile towards me from the very start and have ignored dozens of more up to date sources. Bogus...heh...how are these three bogus hum?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, qoute I write to mark a sad occasion in the history of the CIA and our country. Yesterday, seven Americans in Afghanistan gave their lives in service to their country. Michelle and I have their families, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers. President Obama's message to the men and women of the CIA. Here is the source [6]. You mean to say that the president of the USA himself got it wrong and said seven instead of six? Wow. You cann't have a more valid source than that huh?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An article from December 31, 2009. Cs32en 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is only a day after the attack, when information was still blury, however the president himself came out later on the same day and stated SEVEN Americans were killed. That source from December 31, states five stars. But I saw earlier today a source from a day or two ago that says a full seven stars will be put on the wall. In any case, I don't want to fight with you over this. Compromise, check out my last edit to the article, I put eight or nine killed total, six or seven CIA officers killed total, ok? And I will leave the six remark for now, however if they continue to talk seven, seven, seven we will need to have a new discussion. Ok? Peace brother, and a happy New Year.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that your addition of "or nine" is original research. However, I will not challenge your edit right now, as further information might emerge that would clarify the issues. Your insertion of original research into the article might be held against you in the future, however. The article is currently considered for WP:Did you know, and is being reviewed at the Military History project, so experienced editors might have an eye on it. Cs32en 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, your addition of the number six based on only one reference despite a multitutede of references that state seven officers and your basis for the validation of that reference on One was an Afghan, one was a Jordanian, so six would be CIA can also be interpreted as OR. By the way two reference that you yourself added that are from today [7][8], haha......Wait......Wait.....I just noticed something while writting you this message, this ref [9] says seven CIA officers and the Jordanian, but it doesn't mention the Afghan guy anywhere, the source also says three security guys among the officers, while only two Xe officers have been confirmed among the dead...but...with the Afghan guard it's three security guards. I got it, the Afghan security chief, he was a CIA officer as well, he was probably an American of Afghan origin, it would make sense. It would make sense if he is one of the seven and with the Jordanian that would make eight. What do you think?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is a difference between the talk page and the article. The multitude of information is suggesting that at least some of those reliable sources carry some inaccurate information. Maybe the Jordanian attacker was counted as a killed CIA officer initially, to conceal the involvement of the Jordanian intelligence agency. Maybe there are more casualties that those on which we have some kind of information. If only four were CIA officers, why "at least five stars" on the memorial wall. Other sources have simply translated "seven dead" into "seven stars on the wall". One can certainly enjoy speculating about these issue, but this isn't particularly helpful when it comes to improving the article. Cs32en 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I realy have no idea what you were talking about there, the bomber was an informer not a real CIA officer and the number five was probably the opinion of India times since two were confirmed as security guards of Xe, thus that leaft five more probable as fullfledged officers. In my opinion India times is unreliable since they clearly dedacted the two Xe guys from the total of seven which they did confirm by the way. In any case, listen I am trying to reach out here and solve our dispute, the two sources YOU put out today both state SEVEN CIA guys, as it seems it looks like the Afghan security chief was counted among the CIA guys and he is looked upon as a CIA officer, he was most likely an American of Afghan origin, because I realy don't think that the CIA would give the control of security for the base to a mere Afghan, they would have given control to one of their own. Your ABC for six most likely went on the same logic as you: one Jordanian, one Afghan and so only six must be CIA. Please, please, I am trying to solve our dispute. YOUR source from TODAY clearly states seven CIA officers died plus the Jordanian, no mention of the Afghan. Of the seven CIA officers, three were security guys. We have confirmed that two worked for Xe, with the Afghan that's three security members. It's that simple. The Afghan was most likely an American of Afghan origin. Ok...now we have confirmed the three security guys, as for the four officials they were the two women, Harold Brown, and one more unidentified. One more thing, I didn't just simple remove the reference, there was no reference to begin with. You can check this by checking the edit history of the article before my last edit and will see that reference number 28 linked to NOTHING. I checked now more thoroughly what the problem was, it seems that I renamed that reference by some mistake so it linked to nothing. So I apologise on my part. Now back to our problem. I am willing to reduce from Eight or nine the number of dead in the article, if we include the Afghan security chief as one of the seven CIA operatives, which do include four officials and three guards, by the way all according to your references. :) UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post now says seven "CIA operatives", and FOX also uses "employees", although FOX's text is somewhat inconsistent. Do we know whether CNN's information that the CIA regards contractors as officers is correct, or might that be just an attempt to explain away discrepancies. If you now say "SEVEN CIA guys", that doesn't help to clarify things. And the typo in the reference was easy to replace, no need to remove it. Cs32en 07:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The CIA regards contractors as officers. This has been sourced and proven. Also, the president of the US said seven Americans were killed, and the spokesman for the CIA stated that they held a memorial for the arival of the seven agents, qoute Earlier today, CIA Director Leon Panetta, other agency and national security officials, and friends and family members attended a private, dignified event at Dover Air Force Base to honor and welcome home the seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty last week in Khost, Afghanistan. If the bases security chief was only a simple Afghan as you say why is there no mention of him in any media, and why were there SEVEN bodies at Dover airport yesterday? IF the bases security chief was even killed he was obviously an American of Afghan origin since there were seven bodies on the plane that arrived at Dover yesterday, the CIA and the US president said seven CIA officers, seven Americans died. Why is his body being buried in the US if he was only an Afghan? Hmmm? Stop fighting this man. Jeez.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion, and I have stated mine. None these two opinions is relevant for the article. Cs32en 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack (2)

My opinion as you put it is based on facts and sources, while your's is not. My opinion is based on valid sources, like the president of the United States of America and the spokesman for the CIA, one stated the seven CIA employees were Americans, the other stated that all seven bodies were brought to Dover airport, thus the security chief who was a CIA employee is among them. There wasn't an eight CIA guy. Why are you contradicting the president of the USA and the CIA spokesman?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Cs32en 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I ask why are you contradicting the president of the USA and the CIA spokesman and you say - Thank you for your message? That's not an answer to my question.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a suitable comment, though. Cs32en 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Suitable or not you are still not answering my question. My case:
1.The president of the USA said seven Americans died.
2.The CIA said bodies of seven CIA officers were admitted at Dover airport for a memorial
3.Contractors are considered CIA officers by the CIA if they work for them, the Afghan was working as a contractor thus he was a CIA officer
4.Seven bodies at the airport flown for funeral in America, thus the Afghan (who has been proven to be a CIA operative) was almost definetly an American of Afghan origin
5.Your question to me from before - If he was an American why were we only given his name but not his surname, or the other way around whatever, that's because the CIA has not disclosed the names of the officers killed and the one name that was given for the security chief was probabled aquired by the news agency that covered the story but they didn't get his name or surname or whatever
I laid it out for you nice and neat, will you or will you not debunk and contradict my statements now, for which all we can find references in the article, some of which were put there by you yourself?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this related to the article? Cs32en 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it related to the article? You have been constantly changing your denials over the last two days as it suits you. First you denied that seven CIA guys died and were claiming that only six died. Now since it has been confirmed most definetly that seven died you changed your story. Currently you are denying that the base's security chief is an American of Afghan origin despite overwhelming evidance, and you are also denying that everyone regards the three contractors (two Xe and security chief) as CIA officers as well. That's how it is related. You are constantly changing your story. I will be making the necessary changes to the article in a few days since it is obvious everyone regards both the contractors and the officials as CIA officers or operatives. Your comment that talk on discussion pages is irelevant shows you do not follow Wikipedia guidelines, talk on discussion pages is highly relevant because discussion pages are there so editors can sort out their differences and determine the course of action how to edit articles. You took a stand that what you say goes and nothing else. Based on their actions and comments users Publicus and Geo8rge have expressed their opinion that they do not have a problem with regarding the contractors as CIA officers or operatives as well, in these kind of situations the will of the majority of editors and the validity of the references overwheighs the opinion of one editor, you.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will revert any edit that speculates that the base's security director would have been a U.S. citizen of Afghan origin, unless such an edit is based on a reliable source. Note that I do not exclude that this might in fact be the case. What I dispute is that there would be evidence, let alone evidence provided by reliable sources, for the story you are telling. Cs32en 01:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence exists everywhere, it's just that you do not want to acknowledge them. All sources say eight people died, all sources say seven of the eight were CIA employees, all sources say the seven were Americans, all sources say the Afghan base security chief was one of the seven CIA employees. Those sources combined it is reliable enough and clear enough. All seven CIA guys were Americans (sources exist), one of the seven CIA guys was the Afghan base security chief, this equals American of Afghan origin. The president of the USA said all were Americans, the CIA said all were transfered to the US for burial, everyone says the security chief was a CIA operative. Do you or do you not dispute this?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Synthesis. Cs32en 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not synthesis if it is well sourced as it is. In any case I have given up on putting that he was an American Afghan but I am trying to implement a neutral wording that represents both our POV's. The new wording would affirm that he was a CIA employee and an employee of Afghan nationality, no putting he was American. And readers could interpret that he was a meere Afghan or an American one. Compromise. That's what you wanted frmo the start right?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

POV is not the issue here, your synthesis of various reports is the issue. Cs32en 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording is neutral now and sourced, leave it alone.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman

Here you go again! I thought we passed our differences. It is NOT OR if there are references in the article. And there ARE references in the article. The purpotrators were eather Afghan or Pakistani Taliban or al-Qaeda, there was no fourth.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I say there was a forth? Look at your edits again, and try to calm down, please. Cs32en 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed on numereous occasions over the years between editors, I participated in those discussions. It had been decided that, even though there are major relations between the two conflicts, what happens in Pakistan happens in Pakistan and what happens in Afghanistan happens in Afghanistan. There is the Afghan warzone and there is the Pakistan warzone, one box is for the Afghan warzone the other is for the Pakistan warzone, this happened in the Afghan warzone not the Pakistan one.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the inclusion of the box would suggest that the main perpetrator of the attack was the Pakistani Taliban. You yourself said they were one of the SUSPECTED perpetrators but not definite. The inclusion of the box would suggest it had been proven the attacks were Pakistani Taliban.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The box is there to present a list of battles or attacks of a specific war, this happened in the Afghan war not the Pakistani war.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite obvious, and there are even reliable sources in the article itself, that the conflicts are linked. Whether any political actors might prefer to present the conflicts as completely separate is irrelevant here. What is relevant is what is reported by reliable sources. Cs32en 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You twisted my words again, I did NOT say that the conflicts are not linked. What I did say that the boxes are there to list battles of separate conflicts......Uhhhh.....Listen look at it this way, let's say it is one major war, ok? One war as World war two, world war two had separate fronts: the Western front, the Eastern front, the Pacific front, etc. Each of those fronts has it's own campaignbox that lists battles from that specific front, well we have the same situation here, we have two separate fronts of the same war, on which I think I can qoute both presidents of the US from the past eight years. One box is for one front the other is for the other one. You don't see editors putting the Eastern front campaignbox in the article Invasion of Normandy, do you? Even though some of the SS German forces fighting there were previously fighting on the Eastern front. This has been debated before by editors and decided to separate the boxes.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This attack is suspected, as evidenced by reliable sources, to have a particular connection to North Waziristan, unlike other attacks that happened in Afghanistan. Cs32en 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actualy a few more Afghan attacks have been linked to the Waziristan region but editors have not put that box there. Listen that box is there to list battles and not information on that conflict, if you realy want to connect it to the war in Pakistan add in the background section a link to the war in Pakistan so editors can link there. I think there is already a link to the drone attacks there. The box is a battle exclusive box for a specific war. Add a link to the war in the background section, there...compromise?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to remind you that I haven't inserted the Waziristan box, another editor did. The links to the attacks in Pakistan are of course less relevant, but the links to the U.S. airstrikes are. If you design a separate template for the U.S. airstrikes, I would not oppose substituting such a template for the one that is currently included in the article. Cs32en 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine, whatever, I am done fighting this War of attrition with you. I am attritioned so to say... I am to tired to go on. Do what you like, but I have to warn you that your behavior of edit warring will get you into trouble one day, I saw that you were also in conflict with users Deicas and Troed, so please don't qoute to me the rules of proper conduct on Wikipedia since you edit war with three users at the same time. With that said I am signing an armistice.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deicas wanted to insert a YouTube link, and Troed rejected that his account was described in a straw poll as a single purpose account. You may want to look more closely at the issues involved in these incidents. Cs32en 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For the YouTube link your argument was that Noam Chomsky wasn't an expert in the matter. In fact he is an excellent and notable expert in the matter, as for Troed, he edited, you reverted him, he reverted you, you reverted him etc. In any case, whatever man, do as you please, it was friendly warning.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Given the new turn of events, I am removing the notice of a long break that I had placed here. I hope the incident that led me to write that notice was due both to an unfortunate technical malfunction and an overreaction on the part of an administrator. Not very eager to edit, however. Cs32en 05:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

SPA?

What does this mean? — Marknutley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ) why is it important that i have made few edits outside of this post? [[10]] --mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Ok thank you for the clarification --mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Few or none

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

I'm not suggesting that your account or your participation at the talk page would not be legitimate. See also my comment in the section above. Cs32en 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, and I would like you to revert it since it's blatantly false. Troed (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are of the opinion that the characterization of your account's edits is incorrect, you may revert the edit with an appropriate edit summary. Cs32en 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Which I did, and you reverted it. Thanks. Troed (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have indicated the reason for my revert in the edit summary. Cs32en 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack DYK

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

Thank you for nominating the article! I actually don't know about the criteria which are used to select DYK articles. Let's see how things are going. Cs32en 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Great job on this article. I don't think I've ever seen one person put together an article this complete, balanced, and informative on a current event in such a short time. Really good work. Cla68 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I second the above! The article looks great. Joshdboz (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Williamson (bishop)

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

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

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

Flight 253

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

kurt haskell flight 253

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What aspect of this issue do you not understand?

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

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

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

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

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

Chomsky is not a recognized expert on the issue, and there is no indication that the statement is notable. Furthermore, although it is likely that Chomsky indeed said what is being recorded on the file submitted to Youtube, authenticity remains an issue. Cs32en 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As there seem to be three issues in dispute I have, for ease of editing & clarity of analysis, forked the current "article" [[11]] into three new items on your talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please specify what you mean by "the issue".

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

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

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

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

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

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

there is no indication that the statement is notable

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

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

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

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

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

authenticity [regarding the video in question] remains an issue

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

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

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

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

Before we go anywhere else for discussion of this issue, per my prior request, "[p]lease specify *who* questions the authenticity of video and *what* evidence they cite to support their view."

Per your statement, just above "it's about Wikipedia policy". Please specify referent to "it". Please specify the relevant Wikipedia policy.

Deicas (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed the YouTube video again, although I still am of the opinion that the use of a YouTube videos in this case is not supported by Wikipedia policy. In particular, Wikipedia policy requires that information is taken independent sources that have a track record of reliability. As we generally don't have reliable information about people who upload videos on YouTube, we cannot presume that they are independent or reliable. Furthermore, we don't know whether the information in a YouTube video is notable, or important enough to be included in an article, or if including it would be giving undue weight to the video. There does not need to be explicit doubt about a YouTube video from anyone. Rather, there would need to be sufficient evidence that the video is authentic or notable (e.g. from the account of a press agency or TV channel that also uploads on YouTube). In some cases, YouTube videos may also be acceptable as self-published sources, but this would only apply for the article on Noam Chomsky, not for this article. Cs32en 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You, User:Cs32en, have *continued* to "respond" to my postings without addressing the postings' content. I will now contact Wikipedia administrators and ask that sanctions be placed on you. Deicas (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed the YouTube video that you have added to article again, and it is still in that article (unless someone else has removed it). I have no intention to remove it, although I think that it's inclusion is not consistent with Wikipedia policies. As there is no conflict, and you got what you wanted, I don't feel that I am under an obligation to respond to your postings. Cs32en 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman again

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

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

You are making it up, there is no multiple sources, unlike you I spent my time looking for additional source on Arghawan tehre are no other sources except for that one. I will be sourcing my original research with a valid source that is up to date, read it before reverting please. By the way you yourself put the source there. In the source the backgrounds of all seven CIA guys is laid out, no mention of Arghawan. Read it. [12]UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You deleted my notification of your behavior on the noticebord so to make your point known without mine known, that constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is standard practice, and is taken as an indication that the editor has read the notice. Cs32en 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is standard practice for administrators who resolve conflict, you are not an administrator and the notice was not for you.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

31 hour common vandalism block. You read that correctly; "vandalism block". You quote WP:EDITWAR above, but continue to revert to your preferred version. You misrepresent WP:RS by saying that you only need to quote one source of the "many" that you are aware of, while the other editors note several that differ from the one you quote and yet you maintain your sources are the only one to be used. You remove other peoples comments, thus further disrupting the consensual method of dispute resolution. You file counterclaims to enforce your preferred version. While this block is for 31 hours, I should comment that unless you make a rapid change to your editing style that a far longer sanction is very likely to be enacted upon this account in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with your view of the sources if there was one source that said the Afghan security director was killed, and a number of other sources that would say he was not killed. However, this is not the case. The other sources cited by UrukHaiLoR do not report on the Afghan security director at all. Please have a look at the sources. Additional sources for the death of the Afghan security director are The National (Kuwait), India Times, AGI (Italian Press agency) Chosun Ilbo (Korea). The Associated Press reported that an Afghan was killed (Kansas city newspaper with AP text). Please have a look at the specific content of UrukHaiLoR's last edit, and the synthesis that it was adding to the article. I haven't removed any comment, I have removed the 3rr warning that UrukHaiLoR placed at my talk page. (This is, as far as I know, standard practice, and just indicates that someone has read the warning.) Cs32en 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just seeing that I have inadvertently removed the UrukHaiLoR's report to the admin noticeboard. This was unintended and the result of a technical edit conflict. I thought that I simply copied my edit from the lower part to the upper part, but something obviously went wront. I wasn't aware of his posting to that page when I made my edit. I apologize to UrukHaiLoR and to all other involved editors for this misstep. (My remark above, which was also quoted by another editor on the noticeboard, is not about the noticeboard, but about my talk page.) Cs32en 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

I have no idea how this notion that I would not have been willing to compromise has emerged. UrukHaiLoR has not inserted any compromise language, he has inserted information that was not supported by the sources given for then, he has removed a reference to the Financial Times etc. (See below for details.) He also inserted such information several times, and then came up with the idea that it would be fine to insert the information three times, while reverting it would constitute 3RR. Also, I have told UrukHaiLoR to discuss the issue on the talk page and to file a request for comment, all steps intented at dispute resolution, which he has not done.

If you post notes here, I or someone else can copy them to the ANI discussion for you. henrik•talk 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi henrik, thank you for your assistance! Can you copy the following comment to the noticeboard? (You may leave out the first sentence, if you don't want to be associated with this.) I apologize for the inconvenience and drama this is causing.

I would like to thank Henrik for copying my comment on UrukHaiLoR's report to the noticeboard.

I apologize to UrukHaiLoR and to the other involved editors for (inadvertantly) removing his report from this noticeboard. I used the "new section" tab to make my edit, while UrukHaiLoR's report was not yet on the page. Then, at the edit conflict window, I copied my text from the lower part of the window into the upper part. I did not remove any text from the upper window, but somehow my edit resulted in the removal of the report. Then, I went to look for specific additional sources (the URLs, as I knew that the sources existed) corroborating the ABC report. Returning to the noticeboard, and refreshing the page, I saw UrukHaiLoR's report, and the banner informing me of his message on my talk page. I should have read his message more carefully. As I had just seen his report to the noticeboard, unaware that I had deleted it before, I thought that UrukHaiLoR would refer to a previous 3rr notice he left on my talk page. I responded to UrukHaiLoR, stating that removing a notice would be seen as evidence that the editor had read the notice (which of course refers to talk page notices).
UrukHaiLoR claims that no sources have reported on the death of the Afghan security director at Camp Chapman, other than ABC. He says that three sources would confirm his view. However, neither of the sources explicitly supports what he added to the article (i.e. that no other media reported on the death), nor does any of the sources say that the security director would not have died. There are several sources, other than ABC, that have reported that he was killed in the attack: The National (Kuwait), India Times, AGI (Italian Press agency) Chosun Ilbo (Korea). The Associated Press reported that an Afghan was killed (Kansas city newspaper with AP text).
At the beginning, UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee, [13] (edit summary: "Fixing some grammer errors and working a bit on the style") and inserted the claim that nine people would have been killed in the attack into the article, [14] [15] a claim that was not supported by any source at the time and was based on synthesis on his part.
In his report to the noticeboard, UrukHaiLoR says that I would have stated at one point during the discussion that six CIA operatives had died in the attack (see point 3). Instead, my edits to the article stated that "at least six" resp. "six or seven" CIA officers (not operatives) were killed in the attack, thus reconciling the available sources. (It is now likely, according to reliable sources, that four or five CIA officers were killed.) UrukHaiLoR is misrepresenting our previous discussion with regard to this issue.
I initially discussed the issue with UrukHaiLoR in a rather lengthy exchange of opinions at my talk page (talk page archive). I admit that I got annoyed by UrukHaiLoR arguments, in which he constantly synthesized information taken from various sources, instead of sticking to what the sources actually said. At that point, I should have filed a request for comment myself, instead of just suggesting to UrukHaiLoR to do so. After discussing the issue repeatedly, I grew rather impatient, and responded rather swiftly to UrukHaiLoR's comments. It would have been better at that point to leave the editing process to other editors, and I think that it is a good thing for me now to take a short break from editing anyway, whether my block is being upheld or not.
I think it is important that the article is well sourced, without original research or synthesis. Also, it's important that any information is closely linked to the respective source, and that no information is being inserted into sentences that are based on unrelated sources. This is especially important, as the article is currently in the Did you know queue, and I hope that more editors will have a closer look at the article during the next few days. Cs32en 21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Copied to AN/I. henrik•talk 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer to UrukHaiLoR's response

My answer to UrukHaiLoR's statement on the administrators' noticeboard. Henrik (or any other editor), could you copy this to the noticeboard? Thank you for your help! Cs32en 23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

UrukHaiLoR's statements above illustrate the type of communication I have been subjected to while discussing the issue with him.

A general comment on the issue of the number of dead: Two people were seriously injured, and we cannot exclude the possibility that one or both of them died subsequently, thus changing the actual number of dead. This is just one possibility that makes even simple math difficult in this case.
UrukHaiLoR says that the Times of India would not mention Arghawan by name. The Times of India says [16]: "killing eight people, including an Afghan security director" "the suicide bomber was often picked up from a border crossing by a trusted Afghan security director named Arghawan and driven to the base" "there was a suicide blast that killed eight people, including Arghawan".
I have not included any articles on the issue that say some like "According to ABC,..." Also, ABC says it spoke to someone close to the security director, so ABC is not simply repeating some claim from an uninvolved person.
On the issue of 8/9 killed: I have added "unconfirmed" to the entry of the Kabul CIA station deputy chief in the table. UrukHaiLoR has removed this qualification in his last edit to the article.
UrukHaiLoR says that my statement that "UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee" would be "simple lying and manipulation of information on his part". However, he makes at least two statements to that effect in a section of the talk page section of that article which he named "Revised list of casualties based on new references provided by our friend Cs32en, thank you :)". The comments included the following remarks: "It's over, Cs32en" and "You are out of arguments Cs32en, anything you say from this point is simply POV-pushing." Also, on my talk page, he said "haha......Wait......Wait.....I just noticed something [...] I got it, the Afghan security chief, he was a CIA officer as well, he was probably an American of Afghan origin, it would make sense." "Why is his body being buried in the US if he was only an Afghan? Hmmm? Stop fighting this man. Jeez." (talk page archive)
I had accepted the "compromise" that UrukHaiLoR refers to. However, after the New York Times reported the death of a CIA officer that had not previously been disclosed, it was no longer reasonable to infer that the Afghan would have been a CIA contractor. (It never was anything else than synthesis, from a policy viewpoint.) I therefore removed the description of Arghawan as a "CIA contractor" in this edit. Cs32en 23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Temporary absence

I'll be away from my computer for the next few hours. Cs32en 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Camp Chapman attack

"The deputy chief of station survived the blast, according to several intelligence officials, but is in grave condition at a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany." NPR (This would indicate that eight people were killed altogether.) Cs32en 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh on Friday openly acknowledged that Jordan had a counter-terrorism role in Afghanistan and planned to enhance operations there." AFP

"The suicide bomber who carried out an attack on a CIA firebase in Afghanistan detonated the device as he was about to be searched, and used an explosive so powerful that it killed agency operatives who were as far as 50 feet away, a U.S. intelligence official said Friday. [...] The new information is in contrast to prior speculation that CIA operatives had skipped a search of the supposed informant or were gathered around him when he carried out the strike." Baltimore Sun

colwidth

(in German) Das mit dem colwidth Parameter ist eine sehr gute Sache, weil es die Anzahl der Spalten abhängig macht von der tatsächlichen Breite des Browserfensters. Das heißt, jemand der mit einem 1920x1240 "Riesenmonitor" surft sieht fünf Spalten, aber jemand mit einem iPhone oder Netbook sieht nur eine oder vielleicht zwei. Das ist sehr sinnvoll, da für den "Riesenmonitor-Surfer" drei feste Spalten (so wie du mit {{Reflist|3}} eingestellt hast) Platzverschwendung wären, für einen Netbook-Surfer 3 Spalten aber viel zu eng. Insofern lass bitte diesen Parameter stehen. Danke. --bender235 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Bender, danke Dir für den Hinweis! Leider habe ich ich auf meinem 1920x1200 Monitor keine fünf Spalten gesehen, sondern zwei oder drei (weiss ich nicht mehr genau), die unterschiedlich hoch waren. Auf meinem Monitor sah das jedenfalls gar nicht gut aus, daher habe ich sie geändert. Ich will aber da keine Standards setzen, da mir Deine Überlegung dazu sehr einleuchtet. Wenn die einzelnen Fußnoten nicht sehr kurz gewesen wären, hätte ich auch zwei statt drei Spalten gewählt. Nun ja, war eine Idee, wenn ein schlaues Konzept hinter der Formatierung steckt, dass bei mir nicht so ganz funktioniert, komme ich sicher damit auch zurecht. Cs32en 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the article Elwood Haynes again. It shows two columns of references on my screen. One on the left, and one in the middle. The right side is completely empty. Cs32en 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the portal button right above it. Try it again now, please, I think I fixed the problem. --bender235 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(in German) Die Zahl der Spalten hängt nicht nur von deiner Bildschirmauflösung ab, sondern auch von deiner Schriftgröße im Browser. Siehe den Artikel zur Erklärung der Einheit em. --bender235 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The display of the references on my screen (two columns, i.e. left and middle, with right side blank) has not changed. Maybe the third columns just does not fit on my screen, while it would maybe do so with 25em. But have probably much less problems than other users, as my monitor is rather large, so you can of course just leave the article with the 30em that are currently being used. (On a side note: I see that you have autoreviewer status and several thousand edits, so you are probably familiar with AN/I and blocked users - unfortunately, I currently belong to that category - Can you have a look a the section above, I have placed a comment for the AN/I board there, but I cannot move it to the noticeboard. Could you do this on my behalf?) Cs32en 01:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you want me to do right now. Could you please explain what I'm supposed to copy&paste where? --bender235 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't explain this in more detail. User:UrukHaiLoR filed a complaint against me at the administrators' noticeboard (section WP:AN/I#Camp Chapman attack problem). An unfortunate coincidence (I inadvertently removed his report in a technical edit conflict) resulted in me being blocked immediately, so that I couldn't reply to his statement (more info in the section "Unblock request" above). User:Henrik has then copied my first answer to UrukHaiLoR's complaint, and UrukHaiLoR has reponded to that answer (section WP:AN/I#Camp Chapman attack problem#Response to Cs32en's comments). I have edited an answer to his response in the section User talk:Cs32en#Answer to UrukHaiLoR's response on my talk page here, but I am not able to post comments on the administrators' noticeboard. You can use an edit summary similar to Henrik's, stating "Copying comment from talk page of a blocked user", for example. Thank you for your assistance! Cs32en 02:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hope I did that correct. --bender235 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! (I'm away from my computer for a few hours now.) Cs32en 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Abdallah Said al-Libi

Hey Cs32en, I noticed you made Abdallah Said al-Libi (the guy mentioned in the al-Qaeda Camp Chapman statement) into a redirect to the al-Qaeda leader Abu Laith al-Libi, who was apparently killed in early 2008. I don't believe Abdallah Said al-Libi is actually the same guy (the Long War Journal reports that he may have been killed as late as this past December 2009). Joshdboz (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this! I have just looked for sources. An article of the Los Angeles Times (Key Al Qaeda figure believed slain in Pakistan) mentions both Abu Laith and Abdallah Said (or rather "Abdullah Said"), so they are probably two different people. Could you remove the redirect? I cannot, as I am blocked at the moment, unfortunately. Thank you! Cs32en 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking past the simpler solutions :)

Hello, Cs32en. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Response_to_Cs32en.27s_comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ALI ^{nom nom} 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ali,

I just thought about taking a break for a few hours, but as you dropped a message at my talk page, I will respond. I am still blocked, although other editors have kindly copied edits from my talkpage to the AN/I board on my behalf.

On the compromise: I wouldn't mind personally if the article says 8 or 9 in the lead. We have no source for "9" anywhere, however. NPR now says the deputy Kabul CIA station chief did not die, so we are back to eight dead anyway ("The deputy chief of station survived the blast, according to several intelligence officials, but is in grave condition at a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany." NPR) So the prior compromise with UrukHaiLoR (indicating that Arghawan would be a "CIA contractor", although there is no single source that says so) could be reinstated.

I always assumed that the burden of proof would be on the editor who inserts new information, in this case speculation about the status of the security director, or the aggregate number of nine fatalities. Apparently, this is not always the case. There are several difficulties with UrukHaiLoR last edit to the article (which repeated previous edits) [17]:

UrukHaiLoR

changes "its security director" to "possibly the Kabul CIA station deputy chief", not supported by any of the sources that are given at the end of the sentence that he modified;
removes a reference to the Financial Times
changes "Some of the names" to "The names of five", not supported by the source, which says "some of the names have been disclosed in local media". In addition, the New York Times reports that one name has been disclosed by an online journal [18], so the information given by UrukHaiLoR is also factually wrong.
UrukHaiLoR also inserts the words "Initial reports have stated" and "in the days after the attack ... no mention of Arghawan has been made," two statements that are not supported by the sources he has given, and the second statement also appears to be factually wrong (see the sources I have provided, i.e. Associated Press, The National, India Times, AGI, Chosun Ilbo).

I hope that by now there are enough eyes on the article, so that synthesis and original research can be avoided. I do not think, however, that a compromise, as outlined above, would resolve the basic issue here, which is that I prefer to stick to what sources actually say, while UrukHaiLoR tends to extrapolate from the sources and thus to engage in synthesis, sometimes original research, i.e. not combining information in an unwarranted way, but deducing new information by comparing sources. The new information that is now available on the deputy chief of the Kabul CIA station (alive, not dead) illustrates the danger in such an approach.

Having said that, I would not revert UrukHaiLoR if he would reinsert such language, but would rather file an RFC (concerning such content which is not included in a potential compromise). I remain, however, concerned about the integrity of the article, which need to stay well-sourced, especially as it is in the DYK queue. Cs32en 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is new information available. (Washington Post confirms the Afghan died, Kabul CIA station deputy chief "fighting for his life".) See details on my talk page. Cs32en 17:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(You may copy this to the AN/I board, as I'm unable to do so. Thank you for your assistance!)

For now the information is duplicite, I think we can both agree on that, however I have also come to agree with you that the Afghan in fact may have not been officialy CIA. I have come to agree with you on this since the president and the CIA confirmed all seven CIA were Americans, no Afghans among them. With this in mind I am standing by the compromise that both the administrators at the noticebord proposed and I agreed to. We state - Eight or nine people died in the attack. Among those killed were: seven CIA operatives, one Jordanian intelligence agent and according to some sources the Afghan security chief of the base. or another variant While most news sources report eight deaths from the bombing, seven CIA operatives and one Jordanian military intelligence officer, some report that the Afghan base security chief, Arghawan, was also killed. Is this ok?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest this text at the talk page of the article, and possibly insert it into the article, note that you in fact did not agree to such a wording prior to the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, and discuss the matter with other editors. Cs32en 11:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another, recent source for the death of the driver, i.e. the Afghan security director, Arghawan:

"Virtually everyone within sight of the suicide bomb died immediately, including the CIA al-Qaeda expert; a 30-year old CIA analyst; an interpreter and two other CIA officers; the two contract guards; the Jordanian's handler and the car's driver." Washington Post

(1) CIA al-Qaeda expert (probably the chief of the base), (2) CIA analyst (probably Hanson), (3,4) two CIA officers (Brown,Roberson), (5,6) two contract guards (Wise, Paresi), (7) an interpreter (the unknown seventh CIA operative, probably), (8) Ali bin Zeid, (9) Arghawan (Afghan). Note that the WP does not say nine died, but we can say that nine died immediately, and we can also say nine died altogether. Cs32en 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I copied and posted everything between "I am still blocked, although other editors have kindly copied edits from my talkpage to the AN/I board on my behalf. " and "(You may copy this to the AN/I board, as I'm unable to do so. Thank you for your assistance!)" to ANI. Is that what I should have done? Sorry, I'm just not sure I understood. :P ALI ^{nom nom} 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, ALI! You have copied the exact text that I had written for the noticeboard. However, two new pieces of information have emerged since I've written that text. (They confirm my reading of the sources.) Thus, the compromise, as outlined above, does no longer correspond to the sources available. Can you copy the paragraph that I have added to my comment above (i.e. just under the part that you have already copied?) Thank you for your help! Cs32en 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought the new compromise is that you would write something along the lines of, "These sources reported these deaths. These other sources reported these deaths". So with the sources above, are you saying that you should add "On this date, this important source said this" and "This source reported that person X was no dead, but injured and hospitalized" sort of thing? ALI ^{nom nom} 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold the press!!! Am I hearing this right? You would agree to state in the article that nine people died in the attack since this new information has come to light??? If that's ok, with this new ref, It's absolutely fine by me. If you agree I will change the article totaly now and not even mention the number eight since it has been confirmed by the Washington post too, beside ABC, the Afghan died. With Washington Post it's aboslutely clear now that nine people died and not eight. By the way I tried to agree to that compromise even before the administrator intervention but you didn't want to copromise on it since there was no source explicetly saying nine died. However now there is no need for the eight remark.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Okay then, if everything's worked out I'ma go offline now. Good luck you two- ALI ^{nom nom} 18:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm always willing to work out a new compromise, if there are still disagreements after UrukHaiLoR has read the Washington Post article. This article effectively clarifies what happened. There is one person, presumable a CIA translator, that we haven't heard about before. This is the seventh CIA operative that UrukHaiLoR has been looking for all along (often arguing that the Afghan would have been employed by the CIA). The Washington Post now says nine people were killed immediately (plus the attacker makes 10), and as they give details on each person, and as it's a very recent source, I would say that this effectively outweighs the other sources. (Note that the other sources did not say that the Afghan would not have been killed, and most don't say that exactly eight people would have been killed, though some infer from the number of CIA dead, i.e. seven, plus the Jordanian, that eight would have been killed. There is a strange notion that the other sources would have contradicted the ABC, AP, and three other sources that I have presented, and this notion is simply not true.) Thank you for spending your time on this rather complicated issue! Cs32en 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

UrukHaiLoR, I am really fed up with your false accounts on what you would have been willing to compromise on! You insisted on describing the Afghan as a CIA operative, and you also insisted on inserting various unverified information into the article (see the four points that I have described above). Stop lying, please! Cs32en 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never lyed in my life and have no reason to do so now and I have no reason to justify myserlf to you. I tried to compromise but your temper outweighed your cool, which the administrators had. I insisted on including the Afghan among the seven CIA operatives since it was confirmed that he died but you didn't want to include him as a ninth person and wanted stubornly to state that eight died. In any case I don't care anymore. The situation is resolved, nine people died. I corrected the information in the article. The article is ok now.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You were lying, and you haven't retracted your lies yet. Just look at your edits to the article. Your temper ("It's over, Cs32en." and other statements) is well documented. Cs32en 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't care, it's over. Go chill out and drink a Pepsi. I will. :)UrukHaiLoR (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You do care, and don't pretend that you don't, please! If you wouldn't care, then why are you writing an edit summary that states "the number now is definetly nine", as if this would validate the synthesis that you have added to the article before? You have been proven wrong by the facts, as evidenced by reliable sources, though you might have won your personal fight against me. Cs32en 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said I don't care, I ment I don't care about your accusations, reliable sources now definetly state nine people died. So beyond that I don't care about anything other anymore. There is a saying in my country - The wiser man backs down. The article is now as it should be...per compromise arranged by the administrators and per new references that you introduced.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation of UrukHaiLoR

Cs32en, that sock-puppet investigation you just filed against UrukHaiLoR seems to be very inappropriate and on the face of it an attempt to get the upper hand in a content dispute. May I suggest that you shut that sock-investigation down? I have left words to the effect that it should be shut down immediately on the investigation page.

That you have done this does not look good for you. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your message. What are you trying to tell me? Cs32en 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The timing of the sock investigation seems very suspect. You are in a content dispute with that editor, why have you only now just brought the sock-puppet investigation? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know of the account before, and the content dispute almost immediately emerged after he started editing on Camp Chapman attack. I did not have time to look at the account's edits while I was working on the article, as I was busy looking for sources, editing the article, and responding to the account's posts at my talk page. Cs32en 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To ALL, STOP this

I am an editor editing this article. I started the article. Cs32en has done some good work. Stop this fighting! Resolve the exact number of dead in the talk page! Also remember that spy information is secret so you may have a hard time finding out the real truth, 1 more or less dead. Folks at the CIA and GID are probably laughing at us because they know the true number of dead.

Cs32en, if there is any sneaky vandalism, let me know here so I can fix it since you are blocked. JB50000 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My block has just expired. It was a very unfortunate incidence, involving a technical malfunction and less-than-stellar judgement by administrators. I did things wrong, too, as I should have reported UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs), instead of continuing the dispute with him "privately". I have filed a sock puppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs), and the account is now indefinitely blocked from editing. The reasons for blocking the account are instructive, see User talk:UrukHaiLoR#Blocked. Cs32en 04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Chung Un-chan in the German wikipedia

In the German wikipedia it is stated, that Mr Chung's birthday is on a February 29th, 1946. Beside the fact that 1946 was a common year, thus it can't have 29 February days, Mr Chung was born in 1948. Koreans in the Korean wikipedia told me. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Korea.net, which is run by the government, says Feb. 29, 1946 :-\ The English Wikipedia links to a page at SNU which does not load, at least it did not load on my computer. Googling <"Chung Un-chan" born prime minister> yields two more possible days of birth. Please let me know if you find something that looks both reliable and correct. Cs32en 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

K, then it is very funny actually. But you also know, it can't be. I have asked the Koreans in the wikipedia (and I think, they as natives know it better than we. Sometimes governmental sites are also wrong. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You can also go to the Korean wikipedia and ask them. That's not a problem, I have done that few days ago. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:

I spent about 20 10 (well, maybe that's an exaggeration) minutes checking that all of the sources fitted with the statements. I wasn't exactly going to blindly copy and paste whatever the IP asked me to *chuckle* however, if they make a reasonable request that checks out, then why shouldn't I perform it? Semi-protection is to prevent edit-warring/vandalism, not good faith and well sourced edits. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lim Kit Siang

Hallo Cs32en,

denkst du, dass der Artikel über Lim Kit Siang in der deutschen Wikipedia den Relevanzkriterien genügen wird (und somit eine Chance auf Bestand)? Immerhin gehört der zu den führenden Köpfen in der Oppositionsbewegung in Malaysia (neben Anwar Ibrahim) und dort ist er auch recht bekannt? Was denkst du? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Die Relevanzkriterien in der deutschen Wikipedia sind wesentlich subjektiver als in der englischen Wikipedia, daher kann ich dazu im Grunde keine Voraussage machen. In der engl. Wikipedia ist die Tatsache, dass er einem nationalen Parlament angehört, ausreichend. Vielleicht kannst Du in der deutschen Wikipedia unter "Importwünsche" nachfragen. Wenn dort einer der Administratoren die Einschätzung teilt, dass die Person den Relevanzkriterien genügt, hat der Artikel bessere Aussichten, nicht von irgendwelchen Löschvandalen behelligt zu werden. Cs32en 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe festgestellt, dass vor allem die deutschen Wikipedianer argumentieren a lá "Kennen wir nicht, kann also nicht relevant sein." Aber ami-footballer bekommen nie einen Löschantrag... Ich weiß nicht. Ich trau so Benutzern wie "Eingangskontrolle" zu, dass die im richtigen Leben auch solche kleinlichen Beamten sind, die ja wegen jedem Nanometer-Abweichung gleich aufschreien... -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Versuchs einfach mal. Wenn Admins dort Bedenken äußern, weißt Du auf jeden Fall schon mal, was in einer möglichen Löschdiskussion vorgebracht werden könnte. Cs32en 13:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ich werde dran bleiben. Danke für deine Sicht der Dinge. (Ist ja wie im Lotto. :)) -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Der Artikel in der deutschen Wikipedia dürfte wohl nicht mehr löschgefährdet sein. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In der deutschen Wikipedia spielen Richtlinien keine so große Rolle wie in der englischen Wikipedia. Hat Vor- und Nachteile. Aber wenn der Artikel von einigen Autoren bearbeitet und als gesichtet markiert wurde, nehme ich auch an, dass er nicht mehr gefährdet ist. Der Artikel liegt auch nicht in einem der Sachgebiete, in denen sich die Löschvandalen der deutschen Wikipedia bevorzugt aufhalten. Cs32en Talk to me 01:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Die Relevanzkriterien der deutschen Wikipedia in einem Bild zusammengefasst:

-- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilanz bisher: Immerhin sind alle LAs gegen vier oder fünf Artikel, die ich als IP erstellt habe, abgeschmettert worden, sogar ein LA von Benutzer:Eingangskontrolle ("Eingangskontrolle" ist als Löschkönig berüchtigt). :D 100% Erfolgsquote von meiner Seite. :) -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Userbox

Ah, I see the point now :), changed back. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking claim?

I call to your attention your accusation, made here of coatracking in the critisim section of the 9/11_Truth_movement article. If you are going to make such an accusation isn't the correct venue the 9/11_Truth_movement article talk page , not the reliable sources noticeboard? Deicas (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the issue of coatracking becomes relevant to the article, I will comment on this on the article's talk page. Cs32en Talk to me 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:911ct/Supporters

Template:911ct/Supporters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've agreed to the deletion. (The template was deleted per db-author.) Cs32en Talk to me 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:911ct/Articles

Template:911ct/Articles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've agreed to the deletion. (The template was deleted per db-author.) Cs32en Talk to me 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

5 CIA agents and 2 Blackwater agents killed in Camp Chapman incident.

At starting news and media publish that 8 CIA agenst killed.But later they said 7 CIA agenst killed.But more later CIA confermed that 5 CIA agenst and 2 Blackwater agents(PMC) killed on 31 December.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs)

An operative is not the same as an agent, and generally, the 2 Xe employees have been described as CIA operatives. If you want to use the number 5, you need to change "operatives" to "employees". Please sign your comments on talk pages. Cs32en Talk to me 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

Icasualties also add only 5 CIA casualties in their list.Icaualties doesnt add PMC,s casualties so those two Blackwater agenst who killed on December 31 doesnt add in icaualties list.5 agents add in the casualty data list.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

see 5 CIA agenst starting from 3rd last line in this page.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

And the casualties here is according to icasualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan

Then please change "CIA operatives" to "CIA employees" and adjust the total of 11 to 9. The total is given in two different sections of the article. Cs32en Talk to me 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok.I also write that puzzle in the talk page of that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I want to make this page easier and i want to edit and some changes which will make this page easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Aggregation_of_estimates But i cant because at starting estimate headline, i cant edit.I mean edit page opens but it start my headche. mean how to start, where i edit.Every refrence there is differnt and in mostly areas n/a, n/a.Please.help.I want to update that page according to this refrence only. http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy/%7E/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of this article or of related articles. You can ask for help at the article's talk page. For example, you can propose that the table be converted to a simple text with sections and subsections. Everyone should be able to edit articles, experienced editors as well as editors who don't have much knowledge of Wikipedia's formatting features. Most likely I will not comment on the issue, however. I don't want to get too involved with questions regarding the content of these articles. Cs32en Talk to me 19:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's birthday

Would you please check my work on the article? There was a linked citation that was labeled as an LA Times article that actually linked to the Pittsburgh Press article. I thought I corrected it by changing the label, but maybe the label was right and the link was wrong. Thanks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the mistake! When I saw your edit, I first thought that I simply added the wrong link. However, I can't find the complete article of the LA Times, and maybe I made some other mistake. The contemporary press reports don't tell us anything about any parades that took place later on in Nazi Germany, so the value of such information is probably limited anyway. Cs32en Talk to me 04:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We virtually never semi-protect articles forever. I really don't think it should have been protected at all yet, not until we are getting daily attempts to bypass the block or general vandalism. Which may well happen. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the protecting policy. I've asked for a 48 hours semi-protection. Given that there was an AfD for the article, and that the topic of the article presumably attracts a certain type of vandals, my view was that temporary semi-protection was warranted. User:Orangemike semi-protected the page indefinitely, before my protection request was processed, and I don't think he was aware of my RFPP then. Cs32en Talk to me 08:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question on Biographies of living people

RE: your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 49,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors.

See Category:Unreferenced BLPs for a list of all of them. Ikip 05:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ikip,

Thank you for your help!

I've had a look at some of the unreferenced BLPs, using the "random page" button. There are some for which information has probably been taking from an appropriate source, such as a website of a member of parliament. In some of these cases, the website is given in the "External links" section, so they are not really unsourced. Others are very short (fewer than I initially thought would be), so the loss would not be great, and other are written in a promotional style, and it would actually be better to start from scratch. (Actually, many articles are harder to fix than to rewrite.) Some are in between.

I agree that fixing the biographies would be better, if it is done. That doesn't seem to be always the case, though, so I'd start by asking the question: what should we do with those biographies that are not being fixed? It's a huge work to even check all those BLP for potential misinformation. Furthermore, the promotional biographies (and maybe a lesser number of smear biographies) lower the standards, as other editors assume that this would be somehow acceptable. The most important issue, in my view, is to find a policy that will be applied to all newly created biographies, and I would suggest a somewhat longer period for reducing the backlog than Jimbo did. Given the resources we have, I think that our goal should be to save about half of the unsourced biographies, or maybe half of those biographies that actually meet the notability guideline.

I'll add to my comment, however, that BLPs that have indications of notability (members of parliament, Olympic gold medalists etc.), or relevant categories, the respective projects should be contacted.

In my view, the general problem is not so much that Wikipedia would have too many rules, or that the rules would be too strict. The problem is that many rules are unsystematic, sometimes a rule can be found - ex post - for any desired outcome, and users who somehow follow the mainstream can very often get away with various policy violations, while others are reverted and sometimes even disciplined for similar actions. Cs32en Talk to me 13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack (1)

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack (2)

Camp Chapman

Note

SPA?

Few or none

Forward Operating Base Chapman attack DYK

Richard Williamson (bishop)

Flight 253

kurt haskell flight 253

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

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

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

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

Camp Chapman again

Block notice

Unblock request

Answer to UrukHaiLoR's response

Temporary absence

Sources for Camp Chapman attack

colwidth

Abdallah Said al-Libi

Looking past the simpler solutions :)

Sock puppet investigation of UrukHaiLoR

To ALL, STOP this

Article Chung Un-chan in the German wikipedia

RE:

Lim Kit Siang

RE: Userbox

Coatracking claim?

Nomination for deletion of Template:911ct/Supporters

Nomination for deletion of Template:911ct/Articles

5 CIA agents and 2 Blackwater agents killed in Camp Chapman incident.

Please help

Hitler's birthday

Your question on Biographies of living people

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