User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 7

Sorry

I am so sorry about vandalism. I just want to make one comment: you really shouldn't do that messege after I vandalize only one time. The point is I shouldn't have vandalized. I am a new editor and I don't want to vandalism. Please get back to me and give me some editing tips.Hmprimouhye (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Hmprimouhye (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize - that is my only advice. GAB^Hello! 23:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for vadalize. Is there any way I can make this up to you. Oh, by the way can you give me some editing tips. Hmprimouhye (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here is the basic guide for getting started with constructive editing. GAB^Hello! 23:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)p[reply]

Thank you very much Hmprimouhye (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. GAB^Hello! 23:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you thanked me

GeneralizationsAreBad, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! User:GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)

20:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hezbollah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tikeem

Rather persistent vandal, there's an open SPI for them here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own I created. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was an older master, but these guys can be dealt with quickly. Thanks for the help! GAB^Hello! 18:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but they all have the rather same M.O., also added another new user that's a quacking duck. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/* Edit-Warring */ Concerns that the current page is in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN.

Re: Death of Kendrick Johnson page.

HELLO!! Last week Thursday, I posted some suggestions on the talk page. No one is talking. Is there a way that we can speed things up to get that page edited correctly? VSkolnick (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now responded via email. GAB^gab 18:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible impersonator

See User:GeneralizationsAreBad vs General Ization. Peter Sam Fan 14:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter SamFan: It's another recurring troll, and blocked now. Thanks for letting me know. GAB^Hello! 19:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for the thanks? Iridona (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridona: Thanks for the thanks for the thanks, it's a useful little button that I quite like :) GAB^gab 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shifa / US Official Beliefs

You provided a source (source 16 in the Al-Shifa bombing article) that I don't think supports the claim you want it to. The author wrote an article mainly concerned with ascertaining whether or not the plant was involved in producing chemical weapons. He never explicitly goes into whether or not US Officials actually suspected it was a chemical weapons plant, and in fact provides lots of reasons to doubt this. I'd rather hash this out with you personally than to get into an editing war. Care to comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.201.189 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@173.9.201.189: Sure, thanks for asking. The phrase is, "The U.S. suspected that the Al-Shifa plant was linked to terrorism and was producing chemical weapons for terrorists," and the pertinent parts of pp. 115-116 state, "U.S. officials said the bombing of the Sudanese facility was necessary to prevent bin Laden from acquiring deadly nerve gas precursors that were being produced at Shifa... The Counterterrorism Center of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assembled evidence linking the two embassy bombings to Osama bin Laden, and linking the Shifa plant in the Sudan both to bin Laden and to CW development." Also in the article, p. 117 we have: " top U.S. officials explained that their decision to bomb Shifa was based on their belief that it was involved in CW production," and it later goes on to include a lengthy U.S. State Department "official rationale" that establishes the U.S. belief that the Shifa plant was linked to CW production and Bin Ladin. I have adjusted the citation to include this official statement. True, Barletta disputes that this was actually the case, but the source does support the claim that the U.S. believed this, even if their claims were later questioned. Thank you very much for bringing this up. GAB^gab 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: So, the paper cites numerous statements from US officials ("U.S. officials said..." "U.S. officials explained" "official rationale" etc.), but can we say that therefore the paper supports the view that the US government actually suspected that the plant was producing chemical weapons (etc.)?

@173.9.201.189: Yes, I think so. You may also want to see Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower," p. 282: "The CIA suspected that bin Laden was developing chemical weapons in Sudan... the agency hired a spy... to secure a soil sample from an area close to al-Shifa, a pharmaceutical plant suspected of being a secret chemical-weapons facility and thought to be owned in part by bin Laden..." Also, see Steve Coll, "Ghost Wars," pp. 411-412, which bolsters Wright's claims. Many other sources (like this, for example) also report the concerns of the U.S. over alleged chemical weapon production in similar terms. GAB^gab 20:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: On its face, there is no logical connection between someone quoting an official pronouncement, and that person endorsing the pronouncement as factual. For instance “According Mr. Nixon…” I don’t want to get into a drawn out dispute on this point, so perhaps we can agree to settle some mutually acceptable wording? How about “According to official statements…” and then the rest of that sentence? That seems neutral and better supported by the evidence provided.

@173.9.201.189: Sure, I have updated the wording with the wording you suggested. GAB^gab 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Page Sigma Psi Sigma:

I was wondering if i could get my Sigma Psi Sigma page info back so i can further elaborate on it so that there will be no more need for deletion in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigma Sigma (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sigma Sigma, see WP:REFUND, although I will say that if the article was nominated and deleted per CSD (speedy deletion) then it's unlikely it will go back up as the subject is not notable. --PatientZero ^talk 16:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]