User talk:Ghostofnemo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Ghostofnemo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!



Hi, just letting you know that the spelling of 'Maneuver' is one of those words that varies with British / American variants. Since its originally french, I prefer the 'o' version, but like most spelling there's always people that like it either way. I tend to leave varied spelling as I find it, unless its inconsistent within an article. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Just to let you know, "|publication_date=" is not a valid field in Template:Cite web. The correct field is "|date=". Template:Cite web is also properly {{Cite web}}, not {{cite_web}}. I fixed and consolidated a number of citations you added last night,[1] but I noticed that you added more today, using the incorrect field. Using the wrong field name results in the information not being displayed in the references section.

It also helps if you include "|accessdate=".

--AussieLegend (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good faith[edit]

this was not a shining example of good faith. I did read it, a few times in fact. Then I watched the video a number of times, then tried to present a neutral argument. Comment on content, not editors.--Terrillja talk 06:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As I posted on the appropriate discussion page (why is this on my talk page?) The news article says the captain ordered the engines shut down, it appears the Japanese ship "rammed" the Ady Gil, etc., etc. but you say you edited my contribution to bring it in line with "the facts". My contribution was carefully, and even over-cautiously, based on the article. When you said you were "just trying to state the facts" it implied I was over-stating them.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
And what in all of that provoked you to decide that I had not read the article? this is on your talkpage because it is regarding your conduct specifically and is not relevant to the article in particular.--Terrillja talk 06:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Why, if you read the article, is the comment you put with my reference so out of synch with the article? It would appear that your comment is based on some other article. And anyway, it is not YOUR job to second guess the news media by comparing the video with their news report. That is THEIR job.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the lead sentence of the article. Compare this with your edit: "Fresh footage appears to back Sea Shepherd anti-whaling protesters' claims that a Japanese vessel rammed them last week." Now, here is your edit: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision appears to show that the deck crew was resting and not engaged in any anti-whaling actions when the Shōnan Maru 2 approached."Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png 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) 06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ady Gil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Terrillja talk 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the talk item you removed. I don't see any personal attacks here. I'm simply explaining to the editor who questioned why news sources were being slanted what is going on with the article. Do you disagree that this is what is happening?:
It's ok if Terrillja and Cptnono interpret videos and second guess the news media, because they are more objective and professional than most journalists and new editors, who should never be trusted because of their bias, lack of objectivity and low professional standards. They have given themselves special permission to remove or change news story referenced contributions if they, personally, feel the news source is "biased".Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've continued this discussion back on the Ady Gil page where it belongs. I've cited examples where you and Cptnono stated on the talk page that the news stories that support other editors contributions were biased and you had to correct or balance them.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing changes to the articles, not discussing editors. Continuing to do so is disruption, which is a blockable offense. You didn't get your way, sorry, but move on. --Terrillja talk 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the editors, I'm discussing, and questioning, their edits and editing philosophy - that they have the know-how and credentials to second-guess the news media and spin their articles as they see fit. I don't believe that philosophy will serve Wikipedia well.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiti DIscussion[edit]

Dude, this [2] is like the 3rd time in the discussions that you say some text has been removed, when it has only been moved.  :-p At least this time, you did not start by saying your text was "scrubbed". :-) FYI, I really like your new phrasing about the congressional hearing. [3] --Bertrc (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Where was it moved to?Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. I thought the person who added that line was suggesting the NY Times investigation sparked the Congressional hearings, but the Congressional hearing story was dated prior to the NY Times story, so it was impossible. I didn't realize that was MY line that had been moved and altered.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

JFK Page[edit]

Ghost, clearly you are new here to wikipedia. You were told at least three times why inserting the material you did was inappropriate as a) the insertions were not germane to the article and b) properly resided elsewhere. Why? Because they are assertions from those who question the veracity of the sequence of events established by the various investigations. And the page is, chiefly, the sequence of events as established by the various investigations. IOW, wading into debate over evidence is beyond the scope of the page. There is a brief section on those who believe otherwise which leads to a page on those various conspiracy theories. You might have more success there as that page is a bit of a mess. Canada Jack (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for this discussion is on the article discussion page at John F. Kennedy Assassination. You removed the Mauser information from the Carcano section. It is historical fact supported by references, that the weapon was first identified as a 7.65 Mauser. Just because some editors express a preference doesn't mean they are right. But, in an effort to be agreeable and cooperative, although I disagreed, I moved it to the Conspiracy section of the article. It was removed again, without any discussion. So let's discuss this on the discussion page, shall we?Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for WTC debate[edit]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have examined and rejected the theory. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. However, a current petition signed by more than a 1,000 architects and engineers states that they question the results of NIST, and calls for a renewed investigation.

That's in the third paragraph of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this in reference to? Is this regarding my complaint about the deletion of the information about the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth petition, signed by 1114 architects and engineers, asking for a new investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings? If so, that discussion is being held on the 9/11 conspiracy theories discussion page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That msg was from me at school Ghost. I wanted you to notice that I had successfully inserted the reference in that article days ago. BTW, you should note the section in the 9/11 conspiracy theories discussion page labeled "Straw Poll". Mojokabobo (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I retitled the straw poll heading. I missed that completely. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ref: [4] --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the comment you are referring to? "You are consistently misrepresenting my statements and making all kinds of accusations. I guess the administrators just allow this kind of behavior to continue and continue, so you feel free to be as obnoxious and disruptive as you please, and delete the contributions of other editors according to your own illogical whims. The material that is being removed from this article is not only referenced, but highly relevant. Please see the discussions below at "Absolute Bias" and "CBS on opinions of scientists (Absolute Bias discussion continues here)" and "Removal of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition info from WTC collapse section". Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)"
Here are a few of your comments to me that led up to this.
But I was asking about the *petition* not the group. OK? *Petition*. Why will you never answer questions? How do you think your suggestions will ever make it in to the article when you refuse to argue for them? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If the arguments are unclear, point out what is unclear. If not, answer them. If you can't answer them, that's because you are wrong, and then give up, and stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You continue to ignore my arguments, but still answer. This is intentional disruption from your side. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want to argue for your suggestions and edit, then don't. But then also do not waste your and our time with responding on this page. Either you answer questions and arguments, or you don't respond at all. Everything else is intentional disruption, and will get you blocked sooner or later. That's not constructive behaviour. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A petition is not a conspiracy theory and hence not relevant for this article. You know this now, I will not repeat this any more. Stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't understand Wikipedia policies, ask for help somewhere. Please stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am seriously arguing that petitions doesn't belong in the conspiracy article, as petitions are not conspiracies. I have repeated this several times, and you ignore it. What is it you don't understand? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you may, but since that statement still is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE it's going to be removed again and you will sooner or later end up blocked because of disruptive editing. You need to start follwoing wikipedia rules and procedures. Read WP:DISRUPT and WP:TEDIOUS to learn what you are doing wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be more, but this is enough to illustrate a clear pattern of (in my opinon, baseless) accusations and verbal abuse. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no baseless accusations, personal attacks, obnoxiousness, lack of logic, or verbal abuse in the above quotes. All I'm doing is asking you to stop ignoring the answers you get, stop the disruptive editing, and start engaging in a constructive debate. Something you have refused to do from the beginning. Now you are turning to personal attacks, That is not a constructive path forward. Neither is it a constructive path forward to invent edit wars that didn't exist. You can take this to dispute resolution, but of course you don't, as you are very well aware that I'm not the only editor that opposes these changes. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to improve the article by adding referenced, relevant material. You are removing it for strange, illogical reasons. You seem to be trying to keep anything out of the article that shows the "conspiracy theorists" are acting in good faith and have real evidence of a conspiracy, while defending material that denegrates them. That's not neutral point of view. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if any of this was even remotely true, it does not excuse your personal attacks. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Double checking Ady Gil[edit]

Don't mean to assume the worst but wanted to double check to see if you were IP This is just for transparency in case edit warring or socks come up. Nothing wrong with attempting the edits but wanted to double check.Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. Forgot to log in, and when I went back, there was no place to put the four tildes because it was the live article. How do you fix that? Of course it wasn't sock puppetry - it was a different edit. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all. It was similar content so I wasn't sure if I was bitching and moaning at two people at one. And it is of course not sock puppetry if it is a simple mistake. I still feel like kind of a jerk for asking. Thanks for clarifying.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And we were both reverting on it so I didn't want us to cross 3rr. It is at the noticeboard so we'll see what people think. I feel keeping he edit is plain wrong. But who knows, maybe I am full of it.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it is clear that you will refuse any changes, I have reported this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. This escalation sucks but your continued pushing of this is not acceptable. If you would delay its inclusion until more info is available this could all be ignored but making the link even without the wikilink is not OK. I recommend you pick your battles better since this one line is not worth this much drama. Cptnono (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the line has changed quite a bit since we began our discussion. You want to remove it entirely, despite the WP:RS backing it up. I said I welcome the addition of a sourced explanation for the hooding. What more can I do to please you but completely capitulate to your seemingly unsupported removal? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey pleasing me sounds grand but the problem is leading the reader. You continuing to imply that is similar to that as seen in Cuba or Iraq is purely not acceptable. Remove the line completely. If it is reported that they threw that hood on him in a malicious manner we can revisit it. Nothing left to say since arguments have been repeated.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've responded at the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I added the headers for you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

note from ip.[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I am not a sock puppet for anyone, but merely, for reasons of time, a non-registered editor (working from home, 78...., and university 134...). I am sorry if you were under the impression that one of your fellow users was trying to set you up or something. Obviously, they weren't, and it was not my intention to do so either. I merely noticed there is a pattern in discussion pages you are involved in. It was not at all meant as an attack, but merely as a suggestion of dealing with it, see the last sentence. You seem to be very tense, judging from your reaction to my comment. I am sorry about that, but there is no need. Just please work on your way of debating. (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You really should register and get a user name. I put it off for a long time, but it's no big deal. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Report of edit warring at Ady Gil[edit]

Hello Ghostofnemo. I have seen WP:AN3#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono and am trying to decide if Wikipedia policy has been violated on that article. From what I can see, editors strongly disagree about whether and how the 'hooding' episode ought to be reported in the article. A slow-moving edit war is still an edit war. I recommend that you either open a WP:Request for comment or at least conduct a thorough discussion on the talk page before you revert again. It is expected you will not keep on restoring controversial material unless it is supported by consensus. At present I find it hard to tell who is contributing the most to the problem, and unless that becomes more clear I'm thinking of imposing full protection for a long period. This would be designed to force editors to try to persuade one another, and not continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. GoN is not trying to be malicious (or he is at least countering what could be viewed as that with plenty of edits trying to improve the page) and as I have said I don't want him to get too hard of a time about this. I just want the edit warring to stop and the edit removed since consensus leans that way.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Consensus does not lean that way. Cptnono and Oda Marie favor removal. I think it should definitely stay and NihonJoe says it's ok if it stays. We are waiting for SeanHoyland's comment. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
NihonJoe responded at the bottom of the previous discussion section. I would have moved it, but it seems like he's touchy about stuff like that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think a WP:Request for comment is a great idea! I will propose that on the article discussion page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
We already had the NPOV noticeboard for feedback. It did not result in much but it does appear that it is time to remove the line. An RfC is fine to see if reinclussion would be appropriate. You alright with that?Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ok with removing the line. I've given many, many reasons it should remain. I have many WP:RS that support it. You want it removed based on your personal opinion that it is not notable. At least some media sources think it is notable. It is a simple statement of fact. Why the rush to remove it? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Because I do not seeing anyone agreeing with you. Everything on the multiple pages says that there is too much weight and/or it is misleading. If you don;t remove it you are continuing to spit in the face of consensus. I responded to your request at the talk page. We can finish this up over there.Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is NihonJoe's response: "I'm fine with it mentioning he was wearing a hood because that's true (his windbreaker obviously had a hood, as seen in several of the videos and reports. However, he was not hooded, and including a link to that article is blatantly false and misleading. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)" Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't see that one. It is still misleading enough to be a concern without the link. I'll open up an RFC. It is still clear that 4 editors had a concern with the edit. 3 of them have raised concerns of weight and/or it being misleading. Cptnono (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, he says "including a link to that (the hooding) article is blatantly false and misleading." The line does not do that. Discussion continues at article discussion page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ghostofnemo. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Terrillja talk 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


If you make another personal attack you will get reported to an admin noticeboard. Cptnono (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting other people's work is much more uncivil than complaining about it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you and Terrillja have some kind of back channel to communicate? He deleted my comment within seconds of posting it, but you still had time to post here within seconds. Truly amazing! Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing on your talk pages either. How do you do that? Do you guys work in the same office or something? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the rough language. I didn't mean to burn your ears by calling you two "spiteful monkeys". That was pretty harsh. I apologize for my foul language. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No. It was just a coincidence of timing. I saw it pop up on my watchlist.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG[edit]


Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Terrillja talk 13:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually like this image and started working on a FUR for it. Unfortunately, it looks like the resolution is high. I believe it is still possible. Considering that it was for promotional purposes, I doubt it would hurt the author's feelings. I recommend making an inquiry at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG to see what options are available since time is short on it now.Cptnono (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet that they would release it to the public domain if anyone emailed them, then it wouldn't be a fairuse issues, because the image is absolutely replaceable and any fairuse claim would be invalid.--Terrillja talk 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a FUR. Feel free to readd the deletion tag if you dispute it.Cptnono (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Terrillja talk 15:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. No where on the page does it say that the images are copyright free. Continuing to state so is considered disruption. Terrillja talk 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check the source - I've given a link and a description of the location. I am quoting the source EXACTLY. Please take a look. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I did a search on the photos page and the page with the letter, neither one has anything about copy right or copyright. Have another link? --Terrillja talk 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you try the link in the Fair Use Rational that you are editing? Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This one: This statement appears here: in the "News and Media" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
If you click on that link, it takes you to the photos. The photo in question is one of those photos. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The one with the email/letter that starts with "Good on Ya, Pete Bethune", yes, I did. No mention of copyright.--Terrillja talk 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This statement appears here: in the "News and Media" section. (towards the bottom of the page) Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Only shows up when you use a browser which does not follow web standards. Well built site.--Terrillja talk 16:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I can't see Bethune's photo on his profile either. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ghostofnemo. Thank you. --Oda Mari (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would comment at ANI and promise to improve your behavior, the thread might be closed with no further action. Though I haven't made a full study of the situation, your edits of these articles appear to reflect a personal POV. A careful editor would leave no trace at all of their previous POV on anything they added to article space. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I requested editor assistance regarding this situation several days ago. I've made my case here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's quite unfair that I'M being accused of POV! Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Hello Ghostofnemo, about your Request for Comment, there is no need to respond to your own request or argue with people who respond. The purpose of RfC is to get outside opinions. MiRroar (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then how does my opinion get taken into account? I tried to write the Rfc so that it wasn't too apparent what my view was. And just trying to provide info that people taking part in the discussion implied didn't exist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


This is the only warning you are getting on this. You have continuously failed to adhere to WP:SYNTH. This is not acceptable because you are advancing a position by taking a source which does not discuss the subject of the article in any way and implying that it has something to do with his distancing himself from Watson. It is more POV from you and needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff. It's not SYNTH because I have not misrepresented the source quoted. I suggest you reread WP:SYNTH carefully. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." The sources to not make a correlation between Amnesty intl's feelings on Japan's potential transgressions and Bethune distancing himself from Watson. There should be no argument that it is SYNTH. I will be happy to have admins at ANI explain it to yo if you revert. Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is only one source! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ghostofnemo and SYNTH Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting your claim at ANI and learn what is appropriate to do and do not at Wikipedia. Use the article's talk page. My answer to your question is on the Bethune's talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is a procedural warning. Restore orignal research again against overwhelming consensus and you will be blocked. In short order. Terrillja talk 06:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit was reliably sourced, NPOV and relevant to the article. Here it is: This was an attempt to include highly relevant material but also take the suggestions of other editors into account. What actual reason do you have for deleting this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Days and days of overwhelming consensus and reasoning against adding it.--Terrillja talk 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This was a revised version intended to take those objections into account. But you unilaterally decided for everyone, without any discussion, didn't you? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Where is the OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Synthesis is OR, and you are continuing to try and push your synthesis about Amnesty and Japan. I just made the edit, at least 5 other editors would have made it if I didn't and one has (tacitly) approved of my edit.--Terrillja talk 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no synthesis. Have you actually read what you deleted? Tacit approval after the fact? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Taking two sources and twisting them to try and create a scandal where there is not is in fact synthesis to advance a point of view. And Watson's perspective on things isn't worth the paper it's written on.--Terrillja talk 07:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Watson claims legal counsel was denied. AI says Japan does this routinely. Where is the synth? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
GoN, you are the only one who insists it's not synth. Accept the reality. Oda Mari (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The line is scandal mongering. You use a source not related to Bethune to make that point. That is SYNTH. Leading the reader to draw a conclusion you have made is just as bad as spelling it out. This has been explained to you many many times over several weeks. You should understand it by now. If you don't then you shouldn't be working on the article. I don;t know ow to explain it any clearer and it really doesn't need to be.Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 He also claimed that the Ady Gil wasn't carrying a bow and arrows. Episode 1 of Whale Wars kinda disproved that in a big way with Bethune bragging about how he was going to shoot whales to make them inedible. So his claims are rubbish. And you are taking his claims and amnesty's claims and trying to connect them where there is no connection. Synth. Or do you want to go another few rounds on ANI where more users will tell you that you are wrong?--Terrillja talk 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick to the point, shall we? What is there in the lines deleted and the reliable sources quoted that involves synth or OR? Just read it literally. What does it say? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here it is: "Immediately after Bethune's arrest, Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society complained that Bethune was denied access to his legal team by the Japanese authorities. According to Amnesty International, suspects in Japan can be interrogated for up to 23 days by the police without access to legal counsel." Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Watson claimed he hadn't seen the counsel yet. What he said is irrelevant, his word isn't worth anything, but regardless, you then mentioned that amnesty said they could hold people for x time without a lawyer. You are trying to connect 2 different things to make a reader think that there is some scandal when there isn't. That is the last I have to say on this. You simply refuse to get the point. I'm not sure if you are playing stupid or if you really just don't get it, but I'm done wasting my time trying to reason with you.--Terrillja talk 07:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm relying on WP:RS here, not my personal opinions about the actors involved. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we need an outside opinion on this. I can't believe you don't see how NPOV my edit was. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You had a couple uninvolved editors at ANI tell you a paragraph with the same structure and source was SYNTH. There's your outside opinion. Your edit was better but it was still not OK.Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Per your personal opinion. Noted, but I disagree. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Now please restore the deleted material. There is no OR or SYNTH there. It's reliably sourced and quite NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wall of shame[edit]

Your recent additions to your user page are in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's my user page, and I'm posting stuff related to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't debatable. Please remove it or we again will have to go to a noticeboard. Can;t enough be enough already?Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping at some point this will be readmitted, and I don't want to have to recode all this stuff. I'm not slandering anyone. There are no attacks. It's just my work that had been deleted and the reasons for deletion. To delete this from my userpage would truly be censorship. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, how am I supposed to keep track of all these questionable deletions? There are so many, it's a lot of work to keep track of all of them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


The policy to which you linked pertains to external links, not references. I fail to see how a YouTube video can be an adequate reference, especially with such a controversial issue. On such an article, the sources need to be very strong. Furthermore, I have not edited that article in nearly two weeks, and the specific edits you refer to took place more than two weeks ago. Why the sudden concern? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the quote by Mark Lane in the "Alleged murder weapon" subsection of the "Possible evidence of a cover-up" section of the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article is now unsourced. The source was a video of Lane explaining his observations about the transformation of Oswald's rifle from a Mauser, when discovered, to a Mannlicher-Carcano during the investigation. That quote is now unsourced and can be deleted. If you don't have a precise reason for deletion (the source is not reliable, the source is being misrepresented, the link is bad, etc., I don't think you should be deleting the links. This is probably a Wikipedia wide issue, so we should probably look for a policy on this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I posted it as a question at the Village Pump: Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bethune & Harris[edit]

I wanted to bring this to your talk page, as I feel like we're beginning to overwhelm the Bethune talk page, and I knew this was going to be long. But if you want to remove/move this info, that's fine. I just wanted to clarify a few points that I really think you're not understanding. On the ANI, you say "Personally, I question the competence of his attorney, 1 for not making his interrogation without legal counsel an issue, and 2 for his attitude towards being excluded from the trial (yeah, no big deal). A man on trial, and his lawyer is not there in court with him!!!!! It boggles the mind what his strategy is, unless they are intentionally trying to get Bethune the longest sentence possible to create a martyr for their cause..." Neither of these are issues that Harris can legally raise with the Japanese courts. Japan's legal system is not the same as the U.S.'s (or NZ's, or Australia's, or ...).

First, in Japan, a person does NOT have a legal right to counsel during interrogations. That's simply a fact. I, and I think you, believe that's a bad thing. But Harris, if he regularly practices law in Japan, would know that he cannot raise that issue either at trial or in the Japanese "court of public opinion," because this is standard practice. Heck, interrogations don't even have to be recorded in Japan (thus leading to AI's very legitimate concerns that confessions in Japan may be forced). But it is perfectly legal, and thus Harris cannot do anything about it.

Second, as for appearing in court, as I tried to explain on the talk page, because Harris is not a bengoshi (that is, a lawyer who has passed the Japanese bar), he has no legal right to appear in court on Bethune's behalf. In this case, this is exactly the same as in the U.S. That is, a Japanese lawyer cannot just show up in the U.S. and say, "I'm representing that man, let me in the court as his attorney." Unless the Japanese lawyer passes the relevant State bar, s/he cannot practice law in the U.S. (that is, U.S. law is actually more restrictive than Japanese). The confusion comes from the language issue. Japan has two (actually more, but for our purposes two) categories of attorneys. Harris is in the category that can work with a client, can help them prepare legal defenses and documents related to the country Harris is from, but cannot represent Bethune in court. As you yourself pointed out, Bethune does have attorneys in court representing him. So, as far as the court proceedings are concerned, Harris is just one of many public observers who want to witness the trial; limited space says they can't all be allowed into the court. But Harris has no lesser or greater claim to those seats than any other person, because he has no legal standing in the Japanese court.

I really do understand why this issue concerns you--I do see how it could appear to an outsider that Bethune is being treated unfairly. And maybe he is, in ways that haven't been documented yet. But the way Harris has been involved is completely fair, from the perspective of the Japanese judicial system. It would be very POV for us to apply our opinions about how a justice system should work to this particular case. And it would be WP:SYNTH to bring in outside sources that criticize the Japanese judicial system into this article.

In a certain sense, I appreciate the complex interaction that has been going on on the Bethune page. Prior to this, I was only a casual editor, not at all familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. In an attempt to better understand this situation, I've had to do quite a bit of research, so for me the experience has been very valuable. I hope you know that at least I, but also I think the other editors, aren't trying to push a POV or push you out, but are trying to follow policy and make the article better. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I understand that Japan cannot break U.S. laws because U.S. laws don't apply in Japan. My point is that the Japanese procedures of Bethune's prosecution are notable because most English speakers would consider them unfair to the defendant. Not noting these differences leads the reader to assume Japanese treatment of suspects is similar to the treatment of suspects in Western countries. It would tend to make readers assume he has received a fair (according to Western notions) trial, when in fact the rules were quite different than the ones we are familiar with.
Second point. I understand the Japanese thinking on this, but again, in most countries members of the defendant's legal team are not excluded from the proceedings, and Harris is apparently Bethune's lead attorney, or at least that is how the media is presenting him. It's notable that Harris was excluded.
In my humble opinion, it's POV to assume that the Japanese are treating Bethune fairly (or unfairly). It's NPOV to point out how he and his attorney are actually being treated. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd try here again. Part of the problem, I think, is that you are acting at times like POV/NPOV is the only policy being questioned. The two others that apply here are Notability and Undue Weight. Something that happens to every single person who has an encounter with the Japanese prison/criminal system isn't Notable. Notability is not about meeting the expectations of a reader. To use an analogy, in an article about, say, the Queen of England from several hundred years ago, there is no mention that she was forbidden from seeing her doctor during childbirth, because all women who lived at that time were forbidden from seeing doctors (because of moral/sexual reasons, only midwives could actually look at a woman giving birth). Such information is not notable for each and every woman with an article about her from that time period. It is notable for an article about "history of pregnancy" or "women's health care history" or something like that. It doesn't matter that a modern reader finds it unusual/notable--it matters what is notable given the context of the events. So, here, in the Bethune article, many of the things you want to add have reliable references, but are not notable. Including them seems to imply something negative about what's happening to Bethune, which is why the NPOV policy comes into play, but the main concern is notability. Along similar lines, including information about relatively minor things (again, considering the context of the event, not consider the perception of outsiders) gives those minor things Undue Weight, and thus improperly makes the reader think something unusual is happening. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is where we disagree. I would argue that the fact she wasn't able to see a doctor during childbirth is highly notable, because today we take this for granted. It is notable because it differs from what today is considered "standard practice". Also, the Queen of England was not notable because of her childbirth, but Bethune is notable because of his arrest. And yes, something unusual is happening compared to how suspects charged with relatively minor crimes are treated in other countries.
Furthermore, most of the reasons for removal I have been given are POV and OR. I've argued and tried to prove these are baseless, but they have been repeated over and over in a way that is very uncivil. I've also noted that the reason for deletion keeps changing, so that it appears removal is the actual primary objective, and the reason is just a tool to achieve that objective. It just looks that way to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Then, and I apologize for being so direct, but you are obviously misunderstanding what notable means. By your argument, every single article about every woman who had a child prior to the 19th century should include that information. Similarly, it should include information about the use of leeches in medicine, the lack of flush toilets, the fact that her home did not have electricity...the goal of an encyclopedia is not to provide every fact about every topic that is different from what we "expect" today. Can you imagine what it would be like if every single article about everyone who was born in Japan included a discussion about how and why they take off their shoes before entering their house? The question is not what is unexpected to the reader--it's what is notable about that person specifically, as compared to other similar persons. What makes Cleopatra notable is not that she did not have flush toilets. What makes Yao Ming notable is not that he eats rice every single day. What makes Junichiro Koizumi notable is not that the street he lives on doesn't have a name. You're arguing for some kind of notability that would allow/require every article to include every fact that may not be common knowledge to a typical English reader, despite the fact that 1) there is no typical English reader and 2) it would fill every article with dozens of pages of information which was identical to that of every other article with a person from the same country/culture/religion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If the Queen of England died or was injured during childbirth, it would be notable. Here's another example. There was a spate of tainted food incidents in China a few years ago. The head of the government agency in charge of food safety was found to have been taking bribes from companies. He was executed by the Chinese authorities. Now, according to your logic, this is not notable, because in China the death penalty is handed out gratuitously for many, many offenses. But in the rest of the world, bureaucrats are rarely executed for misconduct. Not notable in his BLP? A woman in Saudia Arabia was beheaded for adultery. Not notable in her BLP? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. The Saudi woman was shot in the head, and her lover was beheaded. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Better story - if married, she could have been stoned to death - not notable? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi! I think you might have interpeted something I said as a personal attack. Please accept my apologies for not being clearer; no attack was intended. Apology and explanation at this diff: [5]. Best wishes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, normally it wouldn't have bothered me, but the "dynamic duo" always put me on edge. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Do I get a theme song? I was biting my tongue over at that request so sorry if it comes across stalkerish. You have tried to link to inappropriate videos before so I suppose I am on edge seeing you attempting to amend policy.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo Two[edit]

I've made some changes to the article, including a bit of copyediting, added who is claiming what and added some more details on the critique. I also cleaned up the references a bit (one was used twice, so used ref name to simplify things). The sources consistently use phrasing like "Sato claimed" when talking about the detention/interrogation, so we need to use that in the article. There's a few more details from the sources that could be added as well - I'll read through them tonight if I can and see what I can pull out.

I also removed the line from Amnestry International about the court system. That's WP:COATRACK - it's not tied to the article. There's article about the Japanese criminal court system, that's where it belongs. Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The AI line is to show, one, that this is indeed standard practice, and two, that it is of concern to human rights organizations. I think it is relevant to the article and should be undeleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion section on the article's discussion page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As a warning, we're both close to 3RR on this article. PLEASE, wait a day for some discussion to happen on this. Given the BRD cycle, if you don't revert my removal of the whaler's aims for at least a day, I won't revert you adding the GP changes for the same period. If that's not acceptable, we'll probably both end up being blocked for edit-warring as we're both obviously quite stubborn. Your call. Ravensfire (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm making changes to my content, but you're deleting without giving any reasons. How can we discuss and reach consensus if no reasons for deletion are being given? Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Reasons have been given. Repeatedly. No problem, you've obviously rejected my offer. Ravensfire (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ghostofnemo[edit]

User:Ghostofnemo, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ghostofnemo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're going to delete my user page? This should be interesting... Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm only attempting to remove the violating bits. MfD was suggested as a way to do this. Worse comes to worse you lose what you have in now and start from scratch after any block is complete. In the perfect world you remove the offending part.Cptnono (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would Oppose deletion if the material were in a no-indexed subpage, rather than your user page itself. I'll also note that the "amusement" comment makes it hard to accept that you are making an honest attempt at preserving these deletions as evidence of possible bias. I don't really feel it should be deleted, but you are making it impossible for me to support you.--SPhilbrickT 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I modified the wording. How's that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to how I can get this stuff off my Userpage and back into the articles? Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you Tig?[edit]

If you used to go by the name of Tig - I would love to catch up with you. I'm on Skype "bermewjan" and I am currently working on the Tokyo Two trial. I think we used to talk to each other a lot several years ago online. I wrote on your user profile a minute ago but I will remove that as this seems like the best way to "talk" to you. Sorry - I am not too familiar with the ways of Wikipedia. Special:Contributions/| (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Lisa (lizardfish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been called many things, but never "Tig"! Sorry... Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh - then it's just a coincidence! I thought you were "tig3933" from the old Greenpeace cybercentre. He lived in Japan, taught English, was around 50 and Buddhist! He also had a great fighting spirit - just like you. I hope your bio page doesn't get deleted!... but hey... why can't we link to the official Greenpeace dossier from the Tokyo Two page? Would be good to put that there as it contains all the details of the original Tokyo Two investigation, the trial etc. Did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardfish (talkcontribs) 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to. The other editors wouldn't even let me do that as an external link. You could try to add it as an external link and argue that it's crucial information that's not available from any other source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do tomorrow. Thanks! Gotta get outta the office. 19:57 here... Lizardfish (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the policy: Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the external link policy. Hmmm, if you can find the "official" Tokyo Two page we might be able to use it! Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored![edit]

Thanks! It's quite an honor to have made your front page, fighting against your inability to understand or accept WP policies. I'd like to thank my parents, and everyone here tonight. You're wonderful people! Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And on a serious note[edit]

Why haven't you created an article on Sato yet? If he's the leading activist you say he is, shouldn't be a problem. Ravensfire (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I could do that, but then the usual gang of editors would stalk me there, start summarily deleting my edits, and in effect ban me from the article. I have better things to do with my time than create articles and then have relevant, reliably-sourced, NPOV material gutted out of them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC links to WP Tokyo Two page[edit]

In case you didn't notice - Richard Black used the WP Tokyo Two page in his blog today -- which I linked back to from the WP page :o) Lizardfish (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to say you did WP:CIRCULAR or am I misunderstanding?Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been driven from yet another page that I created by editors who are summarily deleting my edits. I'm not an involved party in this dispute anymore. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


That was a mistake, sorry about that. I did a history merge of the relevant edits in Cptnono's sandbox into the draft in project space, but I didn't notice that in the process I'd reverted to the last edit when it was still in his sandbox - the changes were too subtle to spot on glancing over the page, and I didn't think to check the diff of my edit. I'll remember to doublecheck this in future. You could've reverted me immediately, especially as my edit summary didn't tally with making any changes to the page. Fences&Windows 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We must be talking about two different edits. Here is the one I'm referring to: Information about the "cite video" template was neatly deleted, and the surrounding information was left intact. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Several of the edits you made in a stretch raised enough concerns that I reverted it all then pieced portions of the template part back in since that was a fantastic idea. Fences and Windows later started trying to get the edit history in which caused it to all go back from the moved version so I did a quick copy paste from there. I don't know the ins and outs but my watchlist had plenty of stuff I didn't understand. Looks like a simple mistake in doing some maintenance and nothing else on his part with the bulk of removal being on my end.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see diff above. It doesn't look like a mistake to me. I'm just saying, this is clearly worthy of discussion, so it should have been discussed. It's a moot point now. I gave up. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As I predicted, your fork has caused confusion. That is a real shame.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to add the "cite video" stuff to your page, but it all got deleted. Not my fault. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't "my" page. Your edits just were not good enough. Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


As you will have noticed, I have closed the MfD of your userpage with the result of "remove the section in question", and have accordingly removed it from your userpage. Regards, BencherliteTalk 10:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you've "left" Wikipedia, then just leave--no need to leave behind some sort of polemic about why you left. If you want to stay and keep editing, then obviously you need to learn to interact collaboratively with others. The MfD clearly decided that the content had to be blanked from your page. The page wasn't deleted because the rest of your info was acceptable. Restoring a link to that info is just as bad as leaving it up on the page itself. If you'd like, though, we can bring your user page back to MfD to actually formally delete the page so that you can't resurrect it. The decision was that the info needs to be removed--this very strongly implies that re-adding the info and/or putting a direct link to the old info is unacceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The administrator did not leave a link to the MfD (rather odd) so I can't determine what was actually decided. They removed the section, but did not impose a discussion ban or link ban. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't take it upon yourself to blank my userpage. I think that is against the rules here. Isn't there a procedure for this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ghostofnemo[edit]

User:Ghostofnemo, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ghostofnemo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason for deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle cut off my explanation. If you go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination), you'll see the full explanation now. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You just need to stop. I know you are upset since you felt like you were censored. However, you were pushing for the article to assert that Bethune was mistreated. He has since come back and said that he received fair treatment. Wikipedia's system worked. You were wrong. The next step is seeking your permanent removal from Wikipedia. The reasoning is as follows:

  • You are attempting to lead readers to information that was deleted per consensus since it was a laundry list of what you saw as wrongdoings.WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:POINT apply.
  • The above was not only a concern at the Bethune article, but also a concern in a topic area that has editor's subject o discretionary sanctions. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories). Decorum is probably enough but there are a host of other disruptive behaviors you continue to engage in.
  • The (edit: revert of the) blank of your user page as done by WP:DUCK can be assumed which means you are more than likely in breach of the sockputtetry policy. (WP:SCRUTINY)

So you can take the lesson you have learned (SYNTH is applied for reasons) and continue to edit but in a more productive fashion or we can take this to the next level in an attempt to see you blocked for an extended period.Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff of YOUR blanking of my userpage: Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I used to be a very productive editor, but I got tired of having most of my contributions deleted for highly questionable reasons. Editing became of waste of time, because my stuff was being immediately deleted, no matter how many reliable sources were quoted or how carefully I matched my edits to the sources. If the bullying stops, I might try again though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If you felt bullied, I'm sorry. But you know it wasn't just a few of us at Bethune or SSCS or other such pages--it was the overwhelming majority at the noticeboards that you raised the issue on as well. In other words, it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors both inside and outside of the topics that your edits did not meet our rules on original research. If you are comfortable editing within those rules (including not deliberately provoking editors with a polemic user page on why you've been wronged), I would like to think that your participation would be welcomed. But you'll only have success if you try to move on from the original problem--again, by removing that stuff from your userpage. If I might be so bold as to suggest it, why don't you try editing again, but, for now, try editing articles that aren't contentious. Try gradually getting a feel for the OR policy, and if a bunch of different people all tell you your edits violate policy, consider that they likely do. This doesn't make your edits "wrong" (in an absolute sense)--most of the "synthesis" you were doing would be perfectly acceptable in professional academic publications, news articles, books, etc. Synthesis and original research are, in fact, highly valued in many other places, both online and off, it's just something we're not allowed to do by the nature and policies of Wikipedia. Which means that you either have to adapt to that policy, or you have to make contributions to the world of knowledge somewhere other than Wikipedia.
So, do you want to start again? Is working within these policies something that's interesting to you? If so, then please remove the links to discussions about how you were wronged, and join the project. If working under these rules isn't interesting then you, then good luck in wherever you do decide to apply your insight and analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikipedia is not about censorship, and your blanking of my userpage is obvious bullying. We should have had this discussion BEFORE you blanked out my page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the deleted contributions and the supporting reliable sources, and tell me that is OR! Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No need to discuss it when you continue to insert disruptive material that was previously deemed unacceptable. No censorship about it. If you want to foster better discussion you need to act like it.Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah...I'm not censoring anything or bullying anyone. The previous MfD clearly said the info needed to be blanked. You can't evade that blanking by adding a link to it--it's no different than if you had just reposted the same info after the blanking. Since you are evading the MfD decision, which was essentially a kindness to allow you to keep the rest of your userpage intact, the only choice is to go back and make the decision more permanent. If you for some reason feel the world needs to know about how you were wronged, then go into the article history, copy and paste it, and take it to blogspot or livespace or facebook or whatever. Our policies here are pretty clear--the MfD found consensus to remove that information, so it needs to be removed. In any event, WP:CENSORED doesn't apply to personal attacks against other editors (just like it doesn't prevent us from removing vandalism, or unsourced info, or whatever), and that's what the MfD determined that information was. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
There are two kinds of censorship going on, material being completely removed from articles (not altered so it better matches the reliable sources it is based on) and you two blanking my userpage on your own initiative, just because you are accustomed to doing stuff like that and getting away with it. Just think about that a minute. You felt you had the power to blank out my userpage because you didn't like what I wrote, just as my well-sourced edits were removed from articles because you didn't like the content. You didn't rework my edits, you totally removed them, along with the supporting references. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You aren't convincing anyone no mater how many times you repeat yourself. Your user page is disruptive and your edits were not inline with the standards here. If you want to turn around and be productive then great. Until then you are wasting everyone's time. Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is your final warning on personal attacks at the MfD. Falsely accusing editors of lying and then accusing editors of "orchestrated slanting of the articles" will not be tolerated.Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "concerted removal of material that differs from the desired tone of the article, which happens to be that Bethune was treated well and received a fair trial?" Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and how about a "I'm sorry I blanked your userpage. I had no authority to do that." Your accusation that I did the blanking could easily be read as a denial of responsibility. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no "desired tone". And Bethune has since said that he was treated fairly. I'm not sory for blanking it since it was in accordance with the previous decision. I never made an accusation that you did the blanking.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
"The blank of your user page as done by WP:DUCK can be assumed which means you are more than likely in breach of the sockputtetry policy. (WP:SCRUTINY)" You just spoke an untruth. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I do have to apologize for that. It should have read "the revert of the blank". Of course I blanked your page and it is obvious in the history. I didn't understand why you were calling me a liar but it makes sense now. My point was that you cannot use your IP instead of a loging in to avoid scrutiny.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Accusing people of intentionally skewing the tone is still a personal attack.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forget to log in sometimes. I wasn't intending to be deceptive. It's not intended as a personal attack, but that's how it looks to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I know that is how you think it looks but that has been denied. If you want to make an accusation like that the appropriate venue is ANI. MfD is not for you to continue your protest. And there is no problem if you simply forgot to log in.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the MFD is now closed and I have revision deleted the old versions that contained the material objected to by the consensus of the two MFDs. --RL0919 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is just like "1984"! The past has been deleted! We can't even discuss what happened now, because the record of what happened has been airbrushed out of history..... Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It's too bad. I disagree with how the decision is carried out too, given ~50% of the people voted against deletion. Next time, you should exercise more tact when dealing with these kinds of issues. If you don't play by the rules, there's no way you'd get anywhere in any dispute. After all, a lot of trolls out there have entire pages of wiki-policies memorized. At the same time, you need to be open to criticism (i.e the WP:SYN debate). If you don't concede to others when you are obviously wrong, then you wouldn't be taken seriously by any reasonable editor.
On the bright side, not all is lost. Since you live in Japan, there are tonnes of pages with disputed contents you can take part in, for example:
Sorry, until Wikipedia gets its house in order, and gets this vandalism under control (rampant deletion of relevant, NPOV and reliably-sourced material for the purpose of altering the tone of articles) I won't waste my time. Finding and coding all those references is a lot of work, and then it just gets deleted for Wikilawyer reasons. Waste of my time. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not going to happen unless there are other editors around to counter their POV-pushing. There are lots of ways battling WP:Wikilawyering if you are indeed in the right... such as asking for mediations or calling for an admin. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and GoN availed himself of quite a number of those avenues, and every time was turned down. Xe went so far as to ask to 'rewrite the policy on synthesis,' and was turned down. Others eventually even brought the matter to WP:ANI, where GoN received no relief. What it comes down to is that GoN has a different opinion from the community as a whole about the definition of original research (specifically synthesis), of WP:DUE, and of what makes material encyclopedic. On the synthesis stuff, I think the issue is dead and buried--his/her definition simply doesn't match the community's. There's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than how Conservapedia's approach to the goal of an encyclopedia is different than ours--it's a big web, and there's plenty of room for other methods of collecting "knowledge"--but it's definitely going to be fruitless to re-raise that issues. On the issue of Reliable sources, xe can take some of them to WP:RSN. On the issue of interpretation of those sources, and application of WP:DUE, xe can open an RfC. I will (personally) defend his right to do so (as long as xe's not just [[WP:DEADHORSE|beating the same dead horse). I sincerely doubt xe'll get anywhere, and, in fact, I think xe knows it, because xe knows that his/her ideas about knowledge building don't match ours. Yes, if you look only at the more recent interactions with GoN, it looks like many people are being unfairly mean and dismissive, but it's only because we've already been through all of the same issues over and over and over again in multiple venues, with people both involved and uninvolved with the pages in question, and each time it was decided, not based on POV but based on policy/guidelines, that GoN was wrong. So, ultimately, just like with everything else, it comes down to GoN being willing to play by the consensus-based rule-set of WP, or constructing (T/t)ruth somewhere else. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What I've said doesn't contradict this. I gave him the benefit of doubt mostly because I didn't want to read the details of the entire dispute (and I thought the threads I started were huge...). Bobthefish2 (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
All of the deleted contributions were well supported by reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
While those making the deletions based their actions on their own personal opinions, which is a sort of reverse original research. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
But there is no way to verify that now, since all the evidence has been deleted from the history of my userpage. That screams "cover-up" to me.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's tough luck. I maintain that a number of your arguments were clearly wrong. If you can't even acknowledge that you've been wrong at least for at least a single issue, then I don't think you have any business to be here. On the other hand, what they did was overkill and you've obviously stepped on more than a few toes. With a bit of humility and a bit more tact, you could've avoided that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the reliable sources should be the key factor, not my personal attributes. Deletion of reliably sourced material should be treated just like adding material that is completely unsourced. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It depends on how they are used. For example, you tried to link an English article on Japanese interrogation to the Tokyo Two. I'd have deleted that too if I were there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The Tokyo Two claimed they were harshly interrogated (tied to chairs and questioned for 12 hours a day, without access to legal counsel). The BBC article said that Amnesty International is concerned about the harsh methods that Japanese police use to interrogate prisoners. How is that off topic or original research? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the people who interrogated the Tokyo Two were not Japanese police? Or that Amnesty International would not consider their questioning to be harsh? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link to the article in question: It clearly implies that these types of interrogations are widespread and official government policy, not exceptional incidents committed by rogue police officers who are then punished for misconduct. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Key section: "Amnesty International has now called on Japan's new government to immediately implement reforms of the police interrogation system to avoid such miscarriages of justice. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged in what the campaign group says is a brutal system that has no place in modern Japan. The conviction rate is more than 99%, often based on confessions. Amnesty International says some are extracted from suspects under duress." Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
More: "The detainee has absolutely no access to his defence lawyers, has no idea how long the interrogation session would go," said Rajiv Narayan of Amnesty International. "And this also involves many, many hours of repeated questions and sometimes sleep deprivation, and where the detainee is given the impression he would only be released once he confesses." It would seem to be highly relevant to the Tokyo Two, who were also prisoners in Japan and who also complained they were harshly interrogated for hours (for the "crime" of exposing the theft of whale meat by whalers). Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained in the past why your Amnesty International article doesn't apply to Tokyo Two. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

honey trap[edit]

Hi, there is a lot of discussion on the Assange talkpage about content similar to your desired addition please join in there, for the time being your addition has been reverted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, there are an awful lot of discussion topics on that article, how about a link? BTW, reliable sources are speculating, not me, so I'm going to revert your deletion for now, until you direct me to this discussion that I haven't been able to find. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I didn't revert you I was just asking you to discuss, I have now reverted and again ask you to discuss. As for a link, the whole talkpage is full of rejections of such tabloid speculation as you are added, lets start a new section.Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I see, it was an imaginary discussion that I was being urged to participate in that was used as justification for the deletion of referenced, relevant and neutral material. Silly me! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


I find it incredulous that you have just stuffed in the same rubbish content after it was soundly rejected on talk. Don't you support consensus and discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you suggest on the talkpage you want to add the content with an alteration? Do you not accept there wa sstrong opposition on the talkpage against your additions and similar such additions? Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your deletions border on vandalism. You have no grounds for deletion and WP:NPOV says all reliable sourced points should be discussed in articles.Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You know where the article talkpage is, take it there and see if there is support for your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would request that you not make any further edits like this one. There is zero chance of such material ever being acceptable as it fails so many of our policies. Sorry. --John (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
But of course you are too busy to actually point the problems out, while I've based my case on actual policies. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Your edit contravened WP:BLP, WP:NPOV (our two most important policies) and also style guidelines like WP:WEASEL. I am genuinely rather busy but if you need more explanation don't hesitate to ask and I will try to do so. --John (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
While the User:Ghostofnemo's wording in the edit you cited can be improved, I don't see anything wrong with what he added. As he pointed out, there are indeed articles from mainstream media that raised such suspicions. Please clarify specifically on how he violated all these Wikipedia policies. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

References in Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative[edit]

GoN, not sure if you're aware of this, but there's a shortcut you can use for common references in an article. The first time you use it, add a name for the reference, like this:

<ref name="SomeName">{{citation template}}</ref>

Then, when you need to use the reference again, you just have to refer to the name, like this:

<ref name="SomeName"/>

I did that on the NSARI page, and the ref list went from 21 entries to 15. It makes it easier for the reader to see which references are used multiple times. I think there used to be a bot that would go through and do that, or at least an automated tool to help, but I haven't found it recently. Nice article, BTW! Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but all the government source references were added by another editor. My only references are in the "Criticism" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoops - my apologies then. I knew you'd done a fair amount of work on the article, and just assumed you'd done most of the article. Sorry for not checking! Now to pass the advice on to the other editor. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing[edit]

Please don't try to change our policies/guidelines like you did here.[6] We discussed this at WP:OR here[7] and your suggestion was resoundingly rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion of your deletion at the policy discussion page here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange[edit]

I am pretty happy with the addition now, I think all the real noteworthy comments are included, I don't see a shopping list of every comment made would add anything, but feel free to raise any you really think are worth adding on the talkpage. After looking at this I think you were right, some mention of the threats really did need including, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperative attitude! I'm glad we were able to work that out. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, me too, lets hope the whole year can follow such a path, happy new year to you and best wishes for 2012. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A friendly request[edit]

Greetings, Ghost. I see that you have continued to attempt to include what I consider to be well-sourced material in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, including mention of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth which is currently only refered to in the 'External Links' section of the 9-11 conspiracy theories article and is the subject of a listing at the NPOV noticeboard, which I just discovered. I also notice removal of information regarding WTC7, and have commented on both issues at the talk page.

I may have this wrong, but I believe you are not violating WP:CANVASS if you alert parties, who have previously commented in a talk page discussion, to a noticeboard listing regarding the issue. In other words, please notify me and I will be happy to weigh in with my thoughts regarding the topic in question. And as I have noted there just now, fresh eyes are needed on this issue. One way to do that could be a WP:Rfc, though those wishing to cast a bad light on you may call that "forum shopping," since you already tried to bring attention to the issue via the NPOV board, which is not exactly a hotbed of activity. (Indeed, my fresh comment there in support is possibly the first time I have ever edited there.) But I do think, as I have noted previously, that the removal of sourced material can only be called censorship, at least as I see it. I think this entire matter is worthy of a deeper look. Best wishes, Jusdafax 09:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! I'm quite surprised by the arguments being made at 9/11 conspiracy theories that, because we haven't achieved consensus, relevant, well-referenced, neutral material must not only not be added to the article, but discussion must end! They don't seem to understand that since there is no consensus, therefore discussion should not be arbitrarily cut off so they can have their way.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that once again I have not been informed of recent developments, because I have a lot of pages watchlisted and don't always scroll back to look at every single change. It is to your credit that you take extreme care not to violate WP:CANVASS but in my case I edit in bursts, and sometimes at odd hours, and sometimes focus intently on something like WP:ITN and fail to notice the latest on this topic. I again hereby request that you slip me a note at my talk page if there is something you think I'd be interested in. In addition, as you have seen, I have strongly objected to the threat to block you. This threat is way over the line, and I doubt I'm the only party that would see it that way. Jusdafax 07:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)[edit]

I noticed your work on the Assistant Language Teacher page. That page needs more work, and the Interac (Japan) page needs more work to make it into the Japan and Education Projects. There's a lot of rumor, synthesis, and spam on it. Also, it's strange that the other private ALT providers don't have pages, since there may be more than 20 companies in operation, and about 5 major ones. I'm also wondering if it would be worthy to edit the ALT-related content up to the quality level where it could make its own kind of "ALT Project" status?KeroroGunso (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if every ALT company is worthy of having its own article. Maybe since Interac is one of the largest, it has one. I think there is a lot of interest in working in Japan, so the ALT article is important because there is not much reference material on the subject except from the ALT companies, who are leading people to believe that they will actually be teaching English, i.e. leading people to believe that it a serious job and that they will be treated like a real teacher. And needed to give straight info on health insurance, housing, employee rights, etc. A lot of people on Japan discussion forums ask the same questions over and over. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning about 9/11 discretionary sanctions[edit]

If you continue to be disruptive and forum shopping, you risk losing your editing privileges. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done nothing but discuss why well referenced material is being repeatedly deleted from the article, in the proper forums, and in a polite manner. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the discussion here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't saying your weren't civil. Your change has failed to gain consensus. Repeatedly bringing the same failed suggestion over and over again is disruptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The move to keep the material out of the article has also failed to gain consensus. That's why further discussion is needed. What is the alternative? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are the one asking for the change. It's your job to convince the other editors of merits of your change, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Several editors want that info in the article. Several other editors keep deleting it. How is that going to be resolved? Threatening me is not the solution. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It has been resolved. You just don't like the result. And if you continue to be disruptive, you risk being sanctioned. I see no point in repeating myself. Consider yourself warned. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself because you aren't acknowledging that this HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED therefore discussion needs to continue. That is not being disruptive. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Ghostofnemo, how would you feel about one last RfC to close the matter once and for all? See the discussion here. unmi 17:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a poll being taken on the discussion page of the NPOV Noticeboard here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be in everyones interest to have a formal and binding RfC on this matter, the previous one was never closed and discussion regarding this has been continuing for more than a year. An RfC would have the benefit of an outside adjudicator who weighs the relative arguments. It would likely also get wider community input than the talkpage of npovn.unmi 07:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Unomi. The NPOV Noticeboard, in my opinion, is a quiet backwater of Wikipedia. An Rfc might be the better way to go. As for the "warning", I'm flat out disgusted by the way this editor attempts to manufacture consensus. Jusdafax 07:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Additional note: I have now requested several times on his talkpage that A Quest For Knowledge withdraw the above warning and cease his continued threats against Ghostofnemo, so far with no success. Jusdafax 18:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think a Rfc is the way to go, let's do it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As we saw yesterday, the supports were gaining traction when 'A Quest For Knowledge' decided he was getting too much knowledge and closed the discussion. When I pointed that out on his talk page, he promptly closed that discussion. Anyway, I have never started an Rfc, so it will take someone else besides me to do so. Please inform me if one is begun; I sometimes get real distracted as I comment above. Thanks. Jusdafax 11:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The place to do it is probably on the article discussion page, right? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose so, but I'd try to go with a high-visibility spot. Often, as I think the case is here, a small group will take over and drive away editors who have no taste for their endless wiki-lawyering and even threats, as we have seen here. Jusdafax 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't find the case I made convincing, that since Aristide is no longer president, an official presidential portrait is no longer obtainable? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For living people, fair use files are not allowed, as the presumption is that it is always "possible" (even though sometimes ridiculously difficult) to get a free replacement. Weird rule, but pretty widely held. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning; could you please provide a more detailed argument? I removed the image because I deleted it: someone tagged it as a replaceable nonfree image, you objected, I deleted it because your objection was not a sufficient reason for keeping it, and I removed it from the article because it's not helpful to have a deleted image in an infobox. I'm not sure what you mean by "an administrator who was overseeing the evaluation of the image", but I can assure you that I'm an administrator (only administrators can delete images or any other type of pages), and I deleted the image because it had been correctly tagged as replaceable for two days, and all images tagged as replaceable for two days are eligible for deletion unless they aren't really replaceable. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to restore those pieces now: unless you file a deletion review request that results in a decision of undelete, the file will never be undeleted. You're free to file an undeletion request, and if you're asking for something besides the actual text appearing on the page, please tell me that: I'll be happy to give you what you'd like to use to make your case. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued deep concerns regarding attacks on you[edit]

At this point I really have to wonder what is going on here. If there is any more of this I am going to have to take the matter to a complaint board. I have never filed one at a major board like WP:ANI but if I see another example of this attacking then something is going to have to be done. Enough is enough. Please notify me of any such on my talk page. I honestly don't know about some of the issues you have fought for (I have just skimmed the lengthy Julian Assange talk page and need to read it more carefully) but no Wikipedian should have to take guff of the type you have. As for the sentence that seems to be so important to exclude, I believe care will have to be taken to do it right, but an uninvolved party or parties, or an Rfc in the proper venue, clearly seems called for. With continued deep concerns, Jusdafax 10:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I started becoming suspicious when a clear pattern developed - some editors (certain people seem to show up again and again at different articles or whenever a lynch mob is forming) were using the same threats and wikilawyering tactics to keep neutrally-worded, relevant, well-documented facts out of various articles. They seem a bit too clever and well organized to be random ditto-heads. When I tried to document this on my user page, showing examples (diffs) of questionable deletions, administrators not only had my evidence deleted, but even had the record of the evidence erased from the edit history! If you read this [Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia] you'll see that Wikipedia involvement isn't in the realm of the impossible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The NYT article is disturbing, and I've put it in my favorites. I say again that while I don't pretend to know what's going on here, that it is highly to your credit that you have never emailed me, choosing instead to keep this in the open. Frankly, I think it best to air these types of matters out rather than let them fester, if Wikipedia is to be a force for good and not just a concrete version of George Orwell's 1984. We are having a public conversation here about the future of this project, it seems to me. The obvious next question is - which admins? Consider carefully how to answer this, as I'll be away from my keyboard for a time today. Thanks, Jusdafax 16:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have now read the AfD discussions regarding your User page, and also examined the history of the admin who deleted it using the methods you describe, so hold up responding to my question, as I have the answer. It's my current view that a very bright light may have to be focused on this, but clearly there is a lot of additional material to study. Jusdafax 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
At this point I see a serious problem. Creating a 'Hall of Shame', while possibly containing accurate data, had the effect of generating more heat than light. Unfortunate, because it appears you have some valid issues. I'll continue to look into this, but it seems the removal of the material from your talk page up to and including the edit histories was done by the book. Had you instead removed the inflammatory language and presented the information at a forum like ANI or even on Jimmy Wales' talkpage, it is my opinion you might have gained some traction with the wider community regarding the inclusion of sourced material to edgy political articles. As it is, I suspect you will continue to be used as a punching bag by those who have an agenda. I will continue to mull this over, and I will object to tactics against you that seem to me to be 'over the line' and quite possibly actionable at various noticeboards, but I suggest that you continue to take care in your actions, and walk away from fights with those who are of ill-will. I also suggest that you document on paper the diffs that may bolster your case(s) should the day come that you need to produce them in a reasoned, organized manner. I have, far as I recall, never taken anyone to a complaint board, myself, but have defended myself at them, and the fact that I have never been blocked speaks for itself. It could be argued, however, that I am too cautious. Jusdafax 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
PERHAPS I can understand removing the material from my user page, but to completely delete the material itself, along with the page history, seems extremely suspicious, as if the pattern I was revealing had to be covered up. At first I thought I was dealing with an organized gang of right-wingers (one of them suggests that editors who don't like being verbally abused by him on Wikipedia try editing at Conservapedia instead), but after the history deletion, I suspect the problem goes much deeper, and that perhaps this gang has at least partially succeeded in gaining control of some of the administrative apparatus. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that on the surface it does not look too good, but the reasoning, I believe, is that a "Hall of Shame" heading can be taken as attacking. A matter of fact presentation of the diffs might have been much harder to remove. I have yet to go into several aspects of this, however, and continue to feel open-minded regarding your views. One thing I find intolerable is the uncivil manner on display by several of the editors you are in conflict with. Under no circumstances should that continue, and I suggest that as you have been, that you continue to refrain from taking any WP:BAIT... Best wishes, Jusdafax 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo: The reason why you are having so many problems is that you don't seem to understand our policies and guidelines and you repeatedly reject advice given to you. Instead of arguing against everyone, listen to the advice given to you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that Ghost appears not to understand that he has the right to ban disruptive posters, whose intent has every appearance rightly or wrongly of a deliberate campaign to WP:BAIT, from his talk page. To put it another way, you seem to be making Ghost's case for him. You have closed down a couple discussions that have not gone to your liking, now you appear here. Interesting. [8] Jusdafax 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The initial title of that section was something like "Wall of Shame" because the deletions were shameful, but when one of the editors involved complained that I had deeply emotionally wounded him by trying to "shame" him for his completely innocent deletions, I removed that title. By the time the deletion diffs were deleted from my page, the "Wall of Shame" title was long gone. In my humble opinion, since I had changed the title to something like "Questionable Deletions" long before the section was deleted, I think the real goal was to destroy the evidence. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
He actually does not, Jusdafax. Feel free to read up on it.WP:UP. Anyways, all this screaming about baiting and censorship and yada yada yada: Stop encouraging him, Jusdafax. And move on, GoN. There is no reason to continue to be upset about it and even if you are still unhapy about how it all worked out, consensus has been that you were wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Learn from it and move on. KIf you had not been talking so much smack up above I wouldn't have even bothered commenting. See ow that works? If you would just let it die already then we could stop bickering.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It's extremely creepy that, although Wikipedia acknowledges the existence of cabals of ideologically oriented editors ( WP:Tag team ) any evidence that would tend to show this can be repressed and even discussion about it is frowned upon. Meanwhile, the questionable deletions continue unabated. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've come across one or two of these cartels a while ago and have to say I agree with what you say. While I am convinced that not all of your positions are correct, some of the RfC's opened about you are pretty ridiculous. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

You've been reported to WP:ANI.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find this issue on the ANI. Please see below. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think discussions on ANI are archived after there have been no new posts for 24 hours or something like that. Here's the archive.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My preliminary observation on the 911 conspiracy issue[edit]

GhostofNemo, I'm working my way through the material at the ANI notice. There's a lot, so I apologize in advance if I miss something critical.

I'll start by saying I'm not a big fan of topic bans, and would like to make sure they are only used as a last resort. I understand why some are frustrated by your edits, and I think I understand why you might think some editors are trying to keep relevant material out of an article. I'll share with you how I see it, and you can correct me if I'm missing major points.

On more than one occasions, you've attempted to add material to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some of the points you've attempted to add are:

  • A BBC report of the collapse of WTC 7 before the building actually collapsed
  • A report noting that total collapse of a skyscraper due to fire is unprecedented

Am I correct that these are some of the points you've attempted to add to 9/11 conspiracy theories?

I understand why you might be concerned if you see editors reverting your additions, especially when you add sources. Do you understand why your edits were deleted?

I think the answer is exceedingly boring, so I wonder if you don't understand the reason, or perhaps just don't believe it is the real reason?

The boring answer is that sometimes Wikipedia article become too long, and there's a process for breaking out large articles into multiple articles. When that happens, it is common to have a top level article that summarizes (without all the detail) the key points of some of the other articles. For example, have you read World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories? It mentions both of the points I listed above.

If your goal is to make sure those points are adequately covered in a Wikipedia article about WTC conspiracy theories, then you should be happy to learn that they are. On the other hand, if you don't care that the points are in one article, and you insist that they belong in a different article, let's have a proper discussion about the proper location. Is that fair?--SPhilbrickT 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I just realized I have to be out of town for the next two days, I will have some access to the internet, but my responsiveness may not always be prompt.--SPhilbrickT 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm back. Let me know if you want to discuss, as I think I see some place where I can help. --SPhilbrickT 20:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, first of all, this issue of the material not being appropriate in this article is highly questionable. Until I reinserted Building 7 information (which had previously been deleted) there was little or nothing about Building 7, but according to the deleted material: "The collapse of Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane, has been cited by hundreds of websites and books as perhaps the most compelling evidence of a cover-up or an inside job. It was home to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and the New York City emergency operations center. (New York Times (both sentences)) [11] A report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that fire had caused the collapse of the building, making it the first case in world history of the total collapse of a skyscraper due to fire. (Sydney Morning Herald) [12] The speedy removal of debris after the collapse left forensic investigators with little evidence to examine. (same New York Times article as above)." All these points seem highly relevant to the article and will not be mentioned if the deletion stands. How can this material be omitted from the article and not violate WP:NPOV which says that all the relevant key points on a topic should be included in an article?
Second point, if you'll check the article discussion page, you'll see that I opened a discussion topic on this issue here: I don't understand why I am at fault and not the deleter, who did not give any justification for the deletion besides "this has been discussed before". If you'll look over the discussions, his assertion that I'm inserting this material "against consensus" is dubious to say the least.Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see you are around. I appreciate your point, but I'm trying to have a discussion in a particular way, because it has been successful in the past. I will attempt to answer your questions to me, but I'd like you to answer my questions to you. Is that fair?
For example, I asked if you were trying to add a point about WTC 7 to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You didn't answer the question, although your response mentioned building 7. In ordinary conversation, it may seem silly to ask you to answer the question again, but some editors feel you aren't hearing their concerns, so I'm trying to figure out what you have heard, and what you haven't. In the spirit of evenness, I'll try to identify some points important to you that are not fully appreciated by other editors. I'll assume that you agree that you have been trying to add info about WTC 7 to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let me know if I'm mistaken.
I would like to hear an answer to an important, relevant question:
Are you aware that World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories has extensive coverage of many of the issues involving WTC 7?
If your answer is no, then we can discuss whether that article has the main points you feel are important. Then the discussion will be a content discussion. However, if the answer is yes, you do know it is extensively covered in World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, but think it also belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories at the same level of detail, then we can have a process content about how Wikipedia articles and sub articles are structured.
I'll await your response before commenting further.--SPhilbrickT 00:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As you'll see in my response above, yes, I was trying to add information about WTC 7. The reason was because WTC 7 is not just MENTIONED in 9/11 conspiracy theories, as a minor subject briefly mentioned in passing, but according to the New York Times (and this was quoted in my response above) "The collapse of Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane, has been cited by hundreds of websites and books as perhaps the most compelling evidence of a cover-up or an inside job." I provided a link to that article above also. While I am aware that a sub article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories does mention WTC 7, as I explained above it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to delete any mention of conspiracy theories involving WTC 7 from the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, because, as the New York Times points out, this is "perhaps the most compelling evidence of a cover up" according to conspiracy theorists. It would appear that editors who have a personal bias against 9/11 conspiracy theories are trying to exclude "perhaps the most compelling evidence" in support of these theories from the article, which is clearly not NPOV and is, to put it bluntly, censorship. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you noticed World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. It is an article addressing many of the points you feel are important. It gets a fair amount of traffic, over 11,000 hits in the last 30 days, so it isn't exactly marginalized. And while you say it "does mention WTC 7", it contains nine full paragraphs, comprising a substantial portion of the entire article.
Let's summarize where we are so far. You agree that Wikipedia has coverage of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory relating to 7 WTC in World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. However, you view that as a "subarticle" and believe that 9/11 conspiracy theories should have more prominent mention of the aspects of 7 WTC. Is that a fair summary?
(Sorry this is slow, but it is valuable. I wasn't sure whether you had seen World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, and if you had not, it might have been a short discussion. Now that I know you are aware of it, and you want coverage of 7 WTC in both articles, we can focus on what is appropriate.)--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining my position clearly enough. The collapse of WTC 7 is a key piece of evidence, perhaps THE key piece of evidence, in the minds of many conspiracy theorists, that something "funny" was going on on 9/11/2001. A reliable source (The New York Times) makes this point. According to the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Therefore, this material belongs in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It may also belong in other articles too, but it definitely belongs in this article, and removing this material repeatedly is the real problem, not the editors who rightfully add it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are making progress, although I have some mild concerns. I tried to summarize your position, so that you could see if I was understanding you. I said "[you] believe that [the specific article]9/11 conspiracy theories should have more prominent mention of the aspects of 7 WTC". You responded with "sorry if I'm not explaining my position clearly enough". Does that mean my summary as not accurate, or are you just being nice and saying it's too bad it is taking so long to get to this point? I'm going to assume the latter, unless you tell me otherwise.
So, as I now understand it, you feel the collapse of WTC 7 is not just important, it is the most important piece of evidence, so deserves a mention in 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Can we agree that it is mentioned, so your goal isn't to make sure it is simply mentioned, but instead, you feel that it is so important that it deserves more prominence in 9/11 conspiracy theories?--SPhilbrickT 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but is this some kind of a hoax? Or are you not a native speaker of English? Are you really having trouble understanding why I'm upset about this deletion? I meant by "sorry if I'm not explaining my position clearly enough" that you apparently don't understand what I'm saying, because you keep asking me questions that I appear to have answered. "I" don't feel this is key information for the article, the New York Times says it's key information (according to conspiracy theorists). It seems open and shut to me that this belongs in the article, and that "A Quest for Knowledge" is in the wrong for repeatedly deleting it (once when another editor posted it and once after I posted a more tightly edited version), and for not justifying his deletion on the article's talk page and for filing a frivolous complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a diff of the previous deletion: Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No, not a hoax. You haven't been able to persuade others, so I thought I would try to make absolutely sure I understand your point. Unfortunately, I'm in an all day meeting, but might have to time to respond more fully this evening.--SPhilbrickT 12:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you've got the wrong talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

pittsburg steelers!!!!!![edit]

How awesome r they:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testep26 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2005 YU55[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to 2005 YU55. However, I've removed it because the source you were using, BBC, was quoting NASA less than accurately, and your addition made it seem like more than it was. The actual quote comes from radar astronomer Lance Benner at JPL:

"The movie shows the small subset of images obtained at Goldstone on November 7 that have finished processing. By animating a sequence of radar images, we can see more surface detail than is visible otherwise," said radar astronomer Lance Benner, the principal investigator for the 2005 YU55 observations, from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "The animation reveals a number of puzzling structures on the surface that we don't yet understand. To date, we've seen less than one half of the surface, so we expect more surprises."[13]

I have no objection if you wish to add similar material back using that source, but the BBC made this out to be something it wasn't. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See reply on article talk page at: Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This kind of paranoid, conspiratorial ranting is not appropriate. If this continues, I'm going to have to escalate this to a noticeboard. Your understanding of how we use primary sources is entirely incorrect. I've tried explaining the problem to you several times, with no sign of understanding on your part. Either there is a competency problem or you have poor reading comprehension skills. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on the article talk page. I've quoted the Wikipedia policies that I believe apply there. Thanks! Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you selectively quoted an essay that I provided, not a policy. And you failed to either read the essay in its entirety or understand it. That particular essay is no different than our guideline on identifying RS in science and medicine. Best practices dictate that press releases from official government organizations like NASA are reliable for the primary quotes they contain. Further, we have evidence that the secondary literature misrepresented these quotes. If after reading this comment, you still don't understand the problem, then you need to file a noticeboard report at WP:RS/N. If you still insist on IDHT, and if you won't accept how we evaluate and determine the best sources to use and cite, then I will have to escalate this matter. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your latest attempt to posit a conspiracy theory.[14] If your behavior continues, I will be forced to ask for your topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was simply being objective and reporting this from a neutral point of view. You are reporting this as a fact, while my wording makes it clear that this is NASA's interpretation. This is the preferred style on Wikipedia, (please see WP:NPOV) so please revert your deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you were not being objective or reporting this from a NPOV. You were in violation of WP:CLAIM, and you intentionally did this to cast doubt on NASA's evidence. Per CLAIM:

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence

For the last and final time, cease your disruptive behavior immediately. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the diff: Which version is NPOV? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Now you're engaging in WP:IDHT. Is there any reason why I should not request your immediate topic ban on ANI? Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you take a little break. You didn't change the word "claim" to "said" or "reported", you completely reworded the line. And I would also like to point out that you are getting darn close to: Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You need to take a permanent break from this topic. Two editors have told you that your edits are not acceptable. You have not answered a single question about your edits, and your continued pushing of conspiracy theories is unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you were discussing this on the article talk page, which is the appropriate place for this discussion, you would see that I have gone to great length to explain why the BBC and Washington Post are reliable sources, that the article should be neutral in tone, and should not be based on government press releases. This is not promoting conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When a popular secondary news source misrepresents a quote from an official organization, we default to the official source. This discussion is now over. If you have any further concerns, you are invited to take those concerns to WP:RS/N. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the BBC and Washington Post would not have made exactly the same "mistake", considering their reputations as reliable news sources. They are simply paraphrasing. Besides, we used your wording, precisely the same as the NASA press release, but simply had the BBC and WP as supporting references, but you've deleted them for no apparent reason. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America[edit]

Greetings Ghostofnemo and thanks for your contributions. :D I'm an Aussie who just saw part one of the excellent film JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America on SBS TV. Very impressed, I sought more info only to find your own short but pithy article. I also checked out IMDB, which has two entries for what appear to be different films: and Now I'm aware that IMDB's not a reliable source, but I found the sparsity of info on this extraordinary doco peculiar. Even the makers of the film had very little info: This must have been a huge labour to obtain, collate, and edit such a vast amount of film from different sources, and to present a coherent narrative. Did you succeed in locating any other info? I'd be happy to help with improving the article if you wish. (I know most Wikipedians are exceedingly busy people :) Melba1 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for drawing to my attention the interference of US government spooks in Wikipedia: How sad. ;/ Melba1 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not a spook myself!!! I'm a casual English teacher with very limited resources, but a little time on my hands ATM thanks to atypical pneumonia (a savage beast, I can tell you). Melba1 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised there was no article, so I wrote one. I'm glad you liked it, but it's just the basic details. If you've got more to add, please do so! Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ghostofnemo. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone now. I guess quoting the BBC and Washington Post in Wikipedia articles is still ok. Too bad the administrator did nothing about editors deleting reliable sources though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ludwig III of Bavaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I think it's ok, because at the top of the disambiguation page, it gives a general definition of the term "republican", which was my intention. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks within quotes[edit]

In answer to this [15], see WP:BTW: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article". The hazard with wikilinking quotes text is that it can sometimes be misleading, in that it implies that the word or phrase is used in the way our article defines it. Actually, looking at the Biden quote in context, the reference to the Pentagon papers seems to have come first from the questioner - the comparison wasn't originally Biden's. [16] I wonder whether we should really use the quote in the way it is presented at all: it actually doesn't make a lot of sense without the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the Julian Assange article talk page. Mind if I copy your comment above? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Reliable sources[edit]

If you have the time, would you mind offering an opinion regarding reliable sources and the attribution of opinions and statements provided by Warren Commission critics? Thanks! Location (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are several mentioned in the article, esp. in the "cover-up" section (some are listed). I wasn't questioning whether or not the author you quoted was a reliable source, but you only used his/her last name without identifying him/her. Perhaps you identified him/her previously in the article, but unless the person is very prominent, it's good to use their whole name if you're mentioning them in a new section of the article (and to cite them with a reference). Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't specifically addressing your earlier reversion, but it may be related to what I was questioning (i.e. that not all opinions that diverge from fact or mainstream perception are WP:FRINGE). I may take another look at my attempted edit down the road to see if it can be worded better. Cheers! Location (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Able Danger material[edit]

At this point you should avoid reinserting it without significant changes. There is sufficient sourcing out there to merit inclusion, but you should make the relevance more blatant when you insert material. Use sources that plainly use the words "conspiracy theory" to describe the claims and try to find some major conspiracist sources that establish directly that it is a prominent theory. Otherwise your insertions are going to keep getting reverted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the article talk page. AQFK is misinterpreting BRD, and I've also supplied another source that points out the connection. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

9/11 descretionary sactions[edit]

Please see the following post.[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

On this, Nemo. I believe, if you comment at AE, you should try not to be too confrontational. Just explain why you kept inserting the material and why you take issue with the reverts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what this link takes me to. It looks like an edit history but it doesn't appear on the Arbitration Requests page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a diff to my statement about you. It's not a request for arbitration, it's a request for enforcement. If that link doesn't work for you, try this one.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, still don't see anything with my name on it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
My post is in the RfA about Mongo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Ghostofnemo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to participate in your survey, but the link above is not working. I'm not very impressed by Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. It seems to be controlled by cabals of editors with an agenda, instead of being an objective process that neutrally enforces the rules, which themselves are often very strangely worded and interpreted. Please see my user page for examples of apparently neutrally worded, reliably sourced, relevant information that has been scrubbed from articles. Also see the Mongo dispute in the section above to see how the dispute resolution process works - attempts to add neutrally worded, reliably sourced, relevant information resulted in a topic ban on an editor. Deleting this information is apparently ok though if you can get a group of editors to say its ok, regardless of the objective reality of the situation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ghostofnemo. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ghostofnemo. You have new messages at Talk:Rising Sun Flag.
Message added 12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui  12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ghostofnemo. You have new messages at Talk:Rising Sun Flag.
Message added 07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

With my apologies. Yunshui  07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


I admire the work you've done on JFK Assassination articles. Ever consider forming a WikiProject, or something, to protect facts being purged by pro-establishment editors? --Hutcher (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ever heard the expression "money pit"? Well Wikipedia is a "time-pit". I've learned to accept Wikipedia as it is, and not to invest myself heavily in it. It's like digging a hole in the sand. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to a discussion you had[edit]

Please see Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Irrelevant_to_compare_to_deaths_caused_by_Japanese_occupations.3F Boundarylayer (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican People's Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Police state[edit]

Please stop adding opinion pieces as citations, you are simply wasting your time. You haven't added a single acceptable reliable source to back up general claims in the way you attempt. Try and find some scholarly work that speak of police states in general terms and define their characteristics. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article's talk page, shall we? Please review the references again, and carefully note the sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) <--dont know if you want to cough up the money for a used copy of this book.

Speedy deletion nomination of Pay Pal 14[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Pay Pal 14 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Your Friendly Neigborhood Wikipedian (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of British words not widely used in the United States, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I assumed "oughtn't" and "shan't" were obviously words not widely used in the United States (this is "Paris is the capital of France" obvious to Americans), but I have found and posted references. I noticed very few of the words listed have such references, however. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether something appears obvious to you or not, it still requires a reference. That Merriam Webster listed the term "oughtn't" without deeming it noteworthy to state greater or lesser usage in any variety of English shows at the very least says that the matter is not obvious. Much or most of what you added to articles yesterday was variously: potentially credible but not obvious, questionable or downright wrong. Yes, much work is required on these articles, with the overwhelming majority of the text unreferenced, hence the WP: OR and WP:V tags at their head. This is all the more reason to make sure any additional material added is properly referenced, rather than carte blanche to compound these problems with the articles with the addition of further unsupported material. By all means remove any unreferenced material, or if you feel minded it would be very helpful to provide references for existing entries which are verifiable. I have been slowly trying to address these matters at List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of British words not widely used in the United States, List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L, List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z. At the first of these, I have been systematically referencing entries or removing them but so far have only reached "F", let alone getting as far as the other three articles, my eventual intention. I have though, been keeping an eye on these articles to make sure any changes are at least constructive until I can address them in more depth. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where you're from Mutt, but I wouldn't even attempt to edit the article "List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom" because I would really have no idea, not being from the U.K. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a good illustration of your apparent misapprehensions regarding how the content of Wikipedia is constructed. It is based on reliable souces, potentially available to anyone from anywhere, not on unsupported material by self-proclaimed experts. Being an expert will give you a head start on finding sources but we don't put our own personal and unsupported views in. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you try editing a research paper on a topic you are completely unfamiliar with some time. I do this as a part-time job. You will quickly see how unlikely it is that someone with no background in the subject matter will be able to do this successfully, no matter how many reliable sources they have at their fingertips. My job is just to fix the English, but even that is difficult when I don't understand the material, even when I can readily find huge amounts of information about it via the internet. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yet you go even further by posting original research about subjects you are unfamiliar with and that is actively contradicted by reliable sources?! Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Example, please. If you can't provide one, I'd say you need to read WP:GF. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This example of course. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a good example. Those are two of the exceptional words that actually have citations:

My apologies, I'd quite forgotten the plethora of examples of your lack of or contradiction of WP:RSs. Though Webster's lack of comment on the use of the terms above being out of the ordinary in the US is one thing, I was more referring to your imaginative beliefs about Brits buying their small arms in the weekly shop by brand name. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turnover and French underground (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In these two cases, it was intentional (to illustrate usage)! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Armalite Rifle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Colt, M-16, Bushmaster and Jim Sullivan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

a significant change about Nanking Massacre[edit]

There is a significant change about Nanking Massacre. Hence I create a new discussion topic about it and hope more editor can join it. I want a consensus about it. Please see the talk page of Nanking Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talkcontribs) 11:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (A Stranger in Tibet) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating A Stranger in Tibet, Ghostofnemo!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The page is reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

About the discussion Nanking Massacre ‎[edit]

Snorri offered a new table which I can see many western historian who support the death figure range from 200,000 to 300,00. Thus I think current figure 40,000 to 200,000 is not Neutral. Hence, I proposal "The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000". I need a consensus so I need to ask all editors who join this discussion before. Please go to the talk page of Nanking Massacre and leave you passage. I offer my proposal in section "table of death toll estimates by scholars".I use boldface to offer this proposal. I just want to know whether you agree my proposal. Thank you。 Miracle dream (talk)

February 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 0| publisher=University of Pittsburgh Press| date=1971}}</ref>, [[Pol Pot]], [[Kim Il Sung]], etc.).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war notice[edit]

Stop icon

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

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

The content has been discussed in a number of forums and every time the consensus has been everyone but you thinks its inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see article talk page. Thanks! Here is a handy link: Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I did see the article talk page and the notice board where in both cases consensus is completely against you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe you've particpated in the discussion on the talk page before. Am I mistaken? That is usually the first step to resolve editing disputes, not jumping straight to threats on another editors talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a press release photo. When it was released, it was accompanied by this statement: "The following images may be used by media, individuals, schools and other organisations free-of-charge." This is discussed in the "Licensing" section of the image in question. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cape Girardeau UFO crash for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: You forgot to sign your comments here. - Location (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

UFO refs[edit]

Here they are. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, and here are the other three deleted refs from the deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Girardeau UFO crash :
I created a redirect from the deleted article page to the List of reported UFO sightings page, in case users are looking for this info. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 NYPD officer killings[edit]

I created a discussion about including the statement "As a result of the protest movement, there have also been calls to reform or abolish the grand jury process." (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

José María Leyva (disambiguation)[edit]

Moved to Talk:José María Leyva (disambiguation) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of José María Leyva (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on José María Leyva (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 2014 NYPD officer killings[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of correct citation of Buhle at American Left[edit]

I'd appreciate an explanation of your edit at [19] to remove a correct citation of the most recent preface on page vii of Buhle in combination with the citation of the older preface on page ix of Buhle after my posts at Talk:American_Left#Encyclopedia_of_the_American_Left_2nd_ed._1998_verification_failure_.28use_of_first_edition.27s_preface.29 and Talk:American_Left#discussion. If you don't want to repair it, that's your call, but I am curious why you returned the citation to its previous verifiably false state of relying only on an outdated preface. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I will reply on the article's Talk page. Here is the diff: Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your explanation is not acceptable to me, and I believe it would not be acceptable to a community of encyclopedia builders. Authors are people. People should not be misrepresented. By removing the citation to their most recent preface, you are misrepresenting Buhle, Buhle, and Georgakas. There may be other ways to do what you want to do without misrepresenting what they wrote in their prefaces. Try again. Do what you want while correctly citing both page vii and page ix of Buhle's prefaces. Their text is at Talk:American_Left#Encyclopedia_of_the_American_Left_2nd_ed._1998_verification_failure_.28use_of_first_edition.27s_preface.29. Cite them correctly. If you're able to do the other things that you want to do within the framework of their prefaces, go ahead. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, this discussion should be occuring on the article talk page, but here is the quote: "This decision is not meant to imply that the broad American constituency for social change consists only of radicals, or that this broad constituency is in any way less important than the more radical elements of the American Left. Our purpose in limiting our coverage is practical rather than ideological: we simply wish to give maximum attention to a vital segment of our political tradition that is routinely ignored or devalued. For this purpose, we have defined reformers as those who believe serious political, social, and economic change can be accommodated into the existing capitalist system and that attaining a viable egalitarian society is primarily a national rather than an international imperative." You're right, this has nothing to do with the article whatsoever, but is really about editorial decisions made by the authors about their particular book. We need to find better references. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Good job. By removing all references to the prefaces of the text The Encyclopedia of The American Left from the lead of Wikipedia's article on The American Left, you now have the power to define the term and the scope any way you'd like. That's what we do here, isn't it? My post at is the complete wrong approach for creating a neutral lead, scope, and article. This paragraph is sarcastic intentionally. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course, no matter what you do over there, it would be difficult to make the article worse. Enjoy! Flying Jazz (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There are actually still two cited references in the lead. I will look for a better source, but this seems "Paris is the capital of France" obvious, at least to Americans. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're making an error. It's a funny error, and a common error, but an error nonetheless. You might keep the error in the article or you might not. Have a look at my current userpage. I left you a hint there. Ubikwit might be able to provide some input too if he has the time. Point him to my userpage. He might enjoy it! Flying Jazz (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the term "broad range" would cover anticapitalism, don't you think? I will try to find a reliable source that equates the left with egalitarianism since this seems to be an urgent thing for you. If this isn't the motivating factor, do you suggest it is just an evil plot to control people and take away their freedom? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not about what you or I think or suggest. It's about what the references say. You have a reliable source for scope and subdividing the topic. It's the two prefaces of Buhle, Buhle, and Georgakas. They wrote The Encyclopedia of the American Left and WP:Scope has some sound advice about the importance of encyclopedias for defining scope. They did two things in their prefaces. They defined the scope of their book which was an editorial decision on their part, and they also defined the scope and the most important partitioning of the entire topic which was an etymological and categorization decision on their part about what American Left means and does not mean. And they know more about the topic than anyone who will ever be on Wikipedia because they wrote an encyclopedia about it. But I do like that you're talking about evil plots for some reason. Oh well. At least I have my userpage. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I found and inserted two much more concise references. If you want to expand on various categorization and descriptions of the Left in the article, that's fine, but we need to keep the lead concise. You could add a section entitled something like "academic theories" or "categorizations by scholars". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The article on Socialism has a section called "Etymology". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

When you consider the state of the remainder of the current version of the article [20], who will benefit if the lead, scope, and body of the article stay the way they are now until 2017, hmm? Mention of the Democratic Party does look a tad funny up there in the final sentence of the lead right now, doesn't it? Look at that list of Contents! Hehe. Democratic Party is underlined in the lead and then after "History" we get to "Explanations for weakness" "Marxist-Leninist" "Trotskyist." How very odd. To a knowledgeable reader, it seems like someone who cared about reality ripped the article from one faction, handed it to another, and then everything suddenly stopped! But what would a less knowledgeable reader think? Consider the essay WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. How was I able to actually succeed in violating that sequence of events and finally create a substantive change in the article's lead and scope? Arguing for a correct citation of Buhle in the lead and removing all reference to the Democratic Party in the lead just might work in your favor in the long run. It will make what's written at User:Flying Jazz less hilarious, but the fun for me about what's written there will probably be gone by 2017 anyway. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I am also discussing this at User_talk:Collect#American_Left_Arbmin_adcom_wikidrama_thing. Perhaps I shouldn't be! I dunno. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how this would help or hinder the Democratic Party in any election. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Your comment on Collect's talk page which you've link to above, about taking "the article back from the other team again" is troubling. You should reconsider your motivation for editing here. This is supposed to be about a team effort to achieve accuracy and neutrality, not about a struggle for control. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You might be correct. Goodbye. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Peace Officer (movie)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Peace Officer (movie), Ghostofnemo!

Wikipedia editor Shibbolethink just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Keep up the good work! I'm adding this movie to my To Watch list immediately! IMMEDIATELY!

To reply, leave a comment on Shibbolethink's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Reference Errors on 21 March[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks ok to me.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (3rd Missouri, US Reserve Corps Infantry (Three Years Service)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 3rd Missouri, US Reserve Corps Infantry (Three Years Service), Ghostofnemo!

Wikipedia editor BeowulfBrower just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Will check back later and mark as stub if needed.

To reply, leave a comment on BeowulfBrower's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your hard work and evidence on your user page of the inherent bias in the userbase of this Project. :3 Sιgε |д・) 12:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think something like this might have more to do with it than the general Wikipedia editor population: "House staffers blocked from editing Wikipedia" Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States[edit]

Thank you for creating the article Deep state in the United States. For the last 2 and a half years I have been collecting references for exactly this article in the list article State within a state. Here is one more that I added today that might be useful.

P.S. - In fact I copied the references myself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and sources. On Wikipedia you cannot make a claim about the existence of the U.S. Deep State based on a cool article in the Village Voice. I am not suggesting you did but a twelve inch pile of books is always better. In fact this article may have been one of the most difficult on Wikipedia to create. I still cannot understand why it took so long.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Petri! Yes, this is exactly the kind of article that will have editors arguing it should be re-titled "Deep state in the United States conspiracy theories"! In fact, there already is such a an article here Shadow government (conspiracy) covering Masonic, ethnic, space alien theories, etc.! The article needs filling out, but yes, at least there is something now. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, these two articles should probably be merged at some point, with the wilder theories in a different section! Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Firearms Import & Export[edit]

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Non-Dropframe talk 02:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page, thanks! Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't view the deletion discussion because the page had been deleted. I also can't view the deleted page. How can I find the deleted data? That was several hours of work and if I can't recover it that's rather unfortunate. Also, how can there be any accountability regarding deletion decisions when deleted pages are unviewable? We can view deleted contributions to articles, why can't we view deleted pages? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
News article that mentions the firm (Associated Press):,951304
Mentioned in a gun enthusiast article:
Deleted article can be viewed here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative left[edit]

Hi there,

With this edit you added a whole bunch of titles to List of alternative media (U.S. political left) citing "Lingeman pp. 117-144", but didn't actually cite that source or provide any additional information about it. I presume it's a reliable source and names all of them as "alternative"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a direct paste from the article American Left, not my original work. I will try to track down the reference and add more details. The material looked accurate so I didn't question it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Updated both articles. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


Please see the talk thread about documents and sources in dispute during Mumfords post verdict acts in Bundy trial

I replied on the talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ghostofnemo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ghostofnemo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Your papers, please for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)