User talk:GeneralChoomin

this is a talk page for myself GeneralChoomin (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at the Israel and allegations of apartheid move discussion

It is a shame when people do not do the minimal research to find facts. For the record, I posted it to WikiProject Palestine[1] and Wikiproject Discrimination[2], the other two wikiprojects in which this article is listed pretty much immediately as well. I try to do that at most RfC's or discussions I am a part of--ensure that all the appropriate wikiprojects are notified. It is preferable to tell the entire story, Choomin. -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please take a few minutes to read WP:Vandalism, especially WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Grammatical changes do not constitute vandalism. In fact, in this instance, the IP corrected the grammar and you loused it up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know i was just trying to reply to you. I guess when people introduce falsifications such as "the papers havent been authenticated" or tries to intentionally misrepresent the facts by inflating numbers of refugees from 10k to 100k as well as adding sections of CAMERA propaganda from one year ago to an article about a leak that was released a month ago. I guess you think that isn't vandalism or adding npov? Please try to help revert these acts of vandalism and NPOV and make the article better by discussing any and all changes in the talk page. You know, like I've been doing.--General Choomin (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edit you labeled vandalism was a change from "are" to "is". That isn't vandalism. POV-pushing isn't vandalism either. I recommend that you look more carefully before you revert, and that you think twice before you describe edits you don't like as vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should undertand that trolls on wikipedia usually resort to multiple edits of a single article to prevent an easy way to get rid of such vandalism. I wasn't targetting or considering just the one word change as vandalism. I consider the whole of the edits of both wikiusers as vandalism. If they wish to correct spelling or other errors that is fine. But to add OR, which the IP did when adding his edits with no comment in the talk pages, is an attempt at vandalism. In which the intent is not really OR but to mislead. Theguardian and various others have verified the authenticity of the leaks. Perhaps you can help the article sourcing people who are part of the process comments on them being leaked. Tony Blair being one of them. It's as if you think I'm warring against what "is" is. Please stop or contribute with facts. Last time you tried to war with people about it being a wikileak because no one hasn't stated it wasn't a wikileak.--General Choomin (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. An attempt to add OR is just that: an attempt to add OR. It is not vandalism.

If somebody adds OR to the article, you're right to revert their edit—just don't describe it as vandalism in the edit summary. Describe it as OR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do I call when people add in things that are clearly defined to be false if they click on any reference on the article? What do you call when people bury there edits with other edits using a source that is older then the leak and has nothing to do with it? It isn't even pov. Stuff like that is just attempts to add junk information which has nothing to do with the topic. What next? An article by Daniel Pipes from 2005 used as a reference to add unrelated information will be OR?

Jeez it's not that hard to see for what it is. Not an attempt to improve the article but to mislead people about the Palestine Papers instead of creating an informative article for them. Even the IP guy tried that with his little edit which you defended with no citations. Perhaps if you actually tried to find sources or information instead of defending random people who do hit and run jobs then I would be more sympathetic to your "OR" accusation. Right now, as I only do this with the small portion of spare time I have, I don't have much sympathy for this little waste of time you want to cause me. Even when I show you and ask you (as well as those that defaced or distorted the article) to help make it a better article. --General Choomin (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I'm sorry I bothered you. Keep leaving messages like the one you left Reenem, and keep using edit summaries like you've been, and you'll end up being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Cuba

I remove the prod notice; the article might have problems but the topic is definitely notable (books, scholarly articles). Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Cuba and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination can help, and the WP:NPOVN? Fences&Windows 00:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you read the heading? I mean, it says that the removal of a dictator by fidel castro during the Cuban revolution was racist. Come on now. It reads like a smear screed instead of an actual article. Multiple people have asked for its deleting in the talk pages.--General Choomin (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Do you understand what original research means here on Wikipedia? It means including things that aren't in the source. And that's exactly what you did—included things "everybody knows" that weren't in the source.

I haven't "issued a threat". I reverted an edit. It's not the end of the world. Find sources that make the connection you were trying to make, and what you wrote won't be OR. Or belly-ache about it. It's your choice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't look at the source. I thought the source was a transcript of the meeting. In fact, the transcript is used as the source for another section. I fucked up, and I'm truly sorry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]