User talk:72.66.30.115: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:12, 14 October 2013

September 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mikey,

1. Don't template the regulars.

2. By this time you should know the difference between an article page and a talk page.

3. Everyone is entitled to my opinion about The Amateur.

4. You're welcome.

5. I wasn't telling HiLo anything she didn't already know about her likes and dislikes.

6. The bullying of IPs damages the community and deters users.

7. You're welcome.

8. Please let me know when you submit your RfA—that's a vote I don't want to miss.

Sincerely, --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Nina Rosenwald was accepted

Nina Rosenwald, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Nina Rosenwald. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism and make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (72.66.30.115) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't like templates, here's a less formal warning

Just noting for others to know that despite being warned before, you've continued to attack other editors, this time in your edit summary where you wrote "we're not permitted to call donations to organizations lefties don't approve of, "philanthropy"". Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another one

I'm sure that you know that we shouldn't be interpreting sources - if a source says "anti-Muslim", you should use that language, not interpret it as "islamization". It's especially important to stick to what sources say in BLPs. This of course isn't the first time you've done this.Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Nina Rosenwald. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I thought this user didn't like templates. WP:DTTR. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(It's OK, Numbermaniac. Doug is just practicing sending out further irrelevant notices. It's his hobby. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nina Rosenwald and NPOVN (from another talk page)

Hi, Jason. Just dropped by to say I enjoyed reading your comments about the Nina Rosenwald article at the NPOV noticeboard. Your intelligent suggestion about "taking the high road" in BLPs, I'm afraid, falls on ears that are stone deaf. It's certain that one who follows another who is blind (to his own POV) and deaf (to good suggestions) will end up in a ditch far from the high road. Courage! --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This from an editor who interprets sources - in an instance where the source said "anti-Muslim", xhe interpret it as "islamization". This is similar to suggesting that a source said "Islamophobic" when it said "anti-Muslim". It's especially important to stick to what sources say in BLPs. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course the obvious intention of the sources is to slime the subject of the BLP, in which case we might not want to stick to what they say quite so closely. Your problem here, Douggie, is that you seem to want to accept Blumenthal & Musaji's opinions (anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, Islamophobic) as facts when they're nothing more than controversial opinions. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are "controversial opinions" because you personally disagree with them? I'm sorry, but you don't get to promote your own personal opinion over the assessment of reliable sources. If you have other questions about how we operate here, the Teahouse is a resource for new members that can help explain our reliable sourcing policies to you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At least the IP is now admitting that that his edits are original research and pov. And Blumenthal, etc are indeed opinions and we state them as such, not fact. Our beliefs shouldn't be part of editing but the IP doesn't seem to be willing to keep his out. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me personally, Roscelese, and every one of the donee organizations now listed in the article would dispute that they are "anti-Muslim", "anti-Islam" or "Islamophobic". We will not be describing them in terms used by their fringe political opponents in Wikipedia's voice as that would violate NPOV. As I told Doug, there is no requirement that fringe or even controversial opinions be included in the lead at all (see the lead of featured article Barack Obama for proof of this). And, having seen how you operate here, Roscelese, I choose not to be a follower, thanks anyway. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

FYI, your edits today have put you in violation of WP:3RR. I won't do anything about it this time, but do not continue edit warring to promote this person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been counting—I have been obliged recently to revert libelous, biased, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons and they don't count as reverts toward 3RR. I should defer to your judgment as you should be a past master of edit warring by this time. My advice to you would be that you not continue edit warring to slime Nina Rosenwald. Recent history of folks adding language to the article in violation of BLP—most of the edits are by Roscelese: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desks

Please note that reference desks are not intended as a forum for debate. I have consequently deleted your 'question' on Islamophobia, since you clearly already know the answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to AGF. My question was specifically about what's in DSM-5, which I don't have access to. You're clearly not very good at reading my mind, so perhaps you shouldn't be trying to do that. It's also not a debate: all it requires is a simple yes or no answer. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy. I've read your answers (to my restored questions) and they fully meet my requirements and expectations. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Nina Rosenwald

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Nina Rosenwald. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User: 72.66.30.115 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24hr block, article semi-protected). EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Revert #3 [9] removes material added two days ago by another user — should not count as a revert as it was merely removing information that was factually incorrect. The original paragraph, when added a few days ago, indicated that Nina Rosenwald resigned in 2007 from Freedom House after two researchers (the president and vice president for research) were admonished for something, suggesting that she resigned in protest because they were disciplined. A closer reading of the original [10] shows the researchers were admonished shortly after 9/11/2001. It is extremely unlikely that Ms. Rosenwald resigned in protest from the board of directors six years after the incident she was supposedly protesting. The editor who added the paragraph originally mis-read the source. My edit removed mention of the incident involving two researchers because the incident did not trigger her resignation. I was only removing text that was unrelated to her resignation, per the source. Therefore, since revert #3 should not count as a revert, I have not violated 3RR and my block should be reversed. (and since the article is now semi-protected, I can't edit it anyway!) 72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're wrong or if you're right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for violating 3RR. Two of the four diffs presented as reverts are not supposed to be counted as reverts: diff #3 merely removed a factual error as detailed in my previous unblock request, and diff #1 (# [11] removes material just added by another user (summary shares the personal opinion that it is "a lie")) which reverts a violation of BLP. Removing a BLP violation does not count as a revert. The text I removed violates BLP because it claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that Rosenwald donates to organizations that are "anti-Islam", which is not true. Rosenwald donates to organizations that oppose the spread of Islam, especially the spread of sharia law. Since I am only at 2RR, I request that my block be reversed. If the charge is that I've been edit-warring no matter the number of reverts, and since I was not edit-warring with myself, justice requires that Roscelese and Dougweller also be blocked for edit-warring (not to mention repeated BLP violations) on the Nina Rosenwald article. If you're not aware Roscelese is an edit-warrior, just look at her block log: ‎Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would harrumph about your wikilawyering except that you are factually (ironically enough) wrong in suggesting that one of your edits was OK because you were reverting a factual error. Edits that revert alleged factual errors do count towards 3RR—otherwise, the rule would be toothless since that's what everyone says. You may have had a point with the BLP revert, but that still leaves you at three anyway. However, please note that the policy section at WP:3RR states quite explicitly that "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" (emphasis in original), and the foreword to said policy goes even further, stating:

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

I am also taking into account your clearly tedentious behavior and the fact that some edits above suggest that multiple users may be tag-teaming under this IP. You may not even be entitled to the full good faith that 3RR allows. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Me edit warring? One series of 3 edits on the 8th (counts as 1 revert), where I removed 'Islamophobia' (and I'm supposed to be violating BLP?). 2 separate edits on the 4th. One on the 2nd, and one on the 1st. All of these before the IP was blocked. A number of my edits have been fixing instances where the IP misrepresented the source. The IP is by far the most prolific editor here, with 69 edits to my 10. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, you haven't been paying attention. It's not the number of reverts you do, it's your attitude that really counts! If admins reading your appeals aren't interested in the facts or the details or the behavior and motivation of the editor accusing you, then you're on your own. (I'll tell you about my issues with your edits to Nina's article after my block expires, on your talk page, unless you tell me not to post there, presuming Verizon doesn't inactivate my internet connection for "vandalism", LOL.). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but not interested, so please don't post on my talk page. I've got much better things to do than bandy arguments with you. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We'll do it here, then. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

1) Only an editor as vindictive as Roscelese would have included diff # 3 as a revert. It is clearly a correction, and the original poster, Nishidani, has no problem with my correction—we discussed it on the article talk page. 2) If the goal is to prevent disruption to the article, then why the block? The article is protected from edits by IPs like me by semi-protecting it, which is what someone did. Blocking me is purely punitive, engineered by Roscelese because we have different political views. 3) I wasn't given time to respond before the block was applied. It was already past my bedtime when I saw Roscelese's notification on my talk page. Two of the reverts shouldn't count, for reasons stated. 4) A wise admin would take Roscelese's behavior, past and present, into account. 5) I really do not appreciate hearing my actions here being described as tendentious. Sometimes you just have to explain things over and over, especially to others who are not inclined to listen anyway because they disagree with your political point of view. Part of the deafness comes from failing to AGF toward IPs. 6) I fully realize that the proper form here is to grovel abjectly, begging for mercy and promising on a stack of Bibles never to do it again, but that just isn't my style. Telling the truth is always more important than just playing the game. My block should be reversed based on the arguments I've presented on this page. Thank you for your kind attention, I know you're busy. 72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

What to do instead:

Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.

If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it.

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

What I find, my dear Beeblebrox, is that it is actually relatively easy for you to avoid addressing any of my concerns, listed above, if you just post a sympathetic-sounding template as a response. What wise man said: "Remember, there is no problem so big or so complicated that you can't run away from it." ? Thanks anyway, I guess. I know you're busy. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous comment by admin, copied from Daniel Case talkpage

Just ran into an edit conflict with you there. I hadn't thought of the possibility this was more than one person. I have to laugh at the accusation I've been edit warring - that was what I was responding to when we had the edit conflict. This IP is pretty obviously and openly anti-Muslim. Hopefully know he/she/they has managed to get attract enough attention. It will be interesting to see if we get any SPAs as the article is semi-protected for the rest of the month. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually my sock possibility resulted from not having fully read the section hed that says that comment was moved from another page. In any event, I've looked it up and the IP resolves to a Verizon server in the Virginia suburbs of D.C. Wonder if it's Rosenwald herself. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Aren't admins trained/advised/smart enough not to make libellous comments about other editors like the one above? You'd think that someone who went to Yale would be smarter than this. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way you come across to me in your edit summaries, your edits and on talk pages. I've changed it to "appears to me to be anti-Muslim" but only on the basis that you have denied being anti-Muslim on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just for the record, I am not Nina Rosenwald or in any way in the employ of Nina Rosenwald or any organization in any way related to Nina Rosenwald. Finally, I am the only user of this Verizon IP account. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Daniel Case regarding vandalism

I'd really appreciate it, Daniel, if you would remove the Verizon vandalism warning you put at the top of this, my talk page. There is no vandalism occurring related to this IP address. In fact, the placement of the tag by you could itself be interpreted as an act of vandalism as there is no evidence whatsoever of vandalism related to this IP account. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation with my request. (This request would have been posted on your talk page but IPs, like me, are not permitted to edit there.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and logged; however, my putting it there has nothing to do with vandalism. In fact, it says nothing about vandalism having actually occurred, just about what might happen if it does. We can put those notices on any IP talk page for any reason. To whom it resolves, and where, is public information available from a single click at the bottom.

And I'll thank you not to use such presumptuous language as "thank you in advance". You asked. I answered. Can you hear me now (so to speak)? Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. Aren't guessing games fun? What was the reason you put it on my page? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it bother you? There are millions of Verizon customers ... how could anyone possibly figure out your real-life identity from this piece of information? You have no reasonable expectation of privacy over that information if you continue to choose to use a website that makes your IP address public. If it bothers you that much go edit from some other IP. Or, God forbid, register an account. Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating like an adult isn't really your strong suit, is it, Daniel? What were your university degrees in again? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"University degrees"? Are you really an American, or just pretending to be one? Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have forgotten, your user page says your undergraduate degree was in English and your masters was in English. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And since you seem to have forgotten, most users of American English do not refer to what they get for completing courses of study at institutions of higher education as "university degrees". Degrees, perhaps, or "college degrees." That's a very Commonwealth way to put it. Maybe it's different down in Chantilly, but whatever ...

Another question for you ... what do you think an open-proxy test on your IP would find, if I asked for one? Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be answering any of your questions until you answer mine: why are you putting sillytags on my talk page? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not already answer that on my talk page...? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 21:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are Daniel Case, numbermaniac, my questions weren't intended for you. I expect an admin who puts a tag on someone's page to explain why, on that person's talk page. I didn't take "We can put those notices on any IP talk page for any reason" for an answer because it isn't a reason or an answer; it's just condescending and uncivil. Case is an interesting case. In his mind, perhaps IP = vandal. Case finally mentioned WP:BLANKED in an edit summary, I read it, and I accept it as policy even if it's only a technicality. But when an admin edit wars over applying a technicality he hasn't bothered to explain to the recipient despite being repeatedly asked to explain by the recipient, then you have to start wondering what is motivating that kind of behavior. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically 8 colons of indentation is the maximum. Stop removing the od so that we can reset it. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who by his own admission has been "editing for years" should not need to have this sort of thing explained to him or her. You only started playing this little game with me because I saw right through you when I declined your unblock request. And I'm happy to play it with you because it keeps you from what we both know is your real agenda ... harassing and stalking Rosclese (Funny how people like you invariably choose to do this to self-identified female editors). Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need professional help, Case. (And you can't even spell Roscelese.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. So you do not deny, then, that that is your agenda? Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See bolded answer above and Public announcement at bottom of page. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DO YOU KEEP REMOVING THE OUTDENT?! Leave it as it is. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no need to outdent here. There's still plenty of room for your comment and following comments. I am interested in learning more about the 8 colon maximum—where exactly can I read about this technicality? It's a new one on me. (By the way, it's uncivil to shout at people and to order them around on their own talk pages.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, numbermaniac

Thank you for removing the Whosis tag Daniel Case put on this page without explanation and apparently without reason. You can see I had some fun with it first. "We can put those notices on any IP talk page for any reason" he says, or, apparently, for no reason at all. It's clear that the fellow has "issues" with IP editors. We're not even allowed on his talk page. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note, we have a new editor named RevoltingHomoBoy. Daniel talked him into changing his username, so RevoltingHB is requesting that it be changed to FoulPutridScum! ROFL. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who has since been blocked as a sock of Favonian. Are you one too? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See bolded answer above. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ROFL, again. That's news to Favonian. In my idiolect of English, "sock of . . ." and "sock by . . ." mean very different things.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I had relied on a hasty look at a now-deleted UAA thread. So, are you a Kauffner sock? Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See bolded answer above. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care anymore what you say; I have been doing some research. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your research will be successful—there are lots of good shrinks in NY. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record regarding the Nina Rosenwald article

It has been claimed, quite irresponsibly, by Roscelese, that I may be a paid PR person working for Nina Rosenwald. This idle speculation is easily disproven—all anyone has to do is compare the August 27 version of the article as deleted with the version that I had restored on September 26. I am the editor who added mention of Max Blumenthal's article to the body of the Nina article. I also set up Blumenthal's article as an External link (even though this is frowned on in some quarters as Blumenthal's article was already listed, by me, as a footnote with an active link to his article in The Nation) because I think people should read Blumethal's article and make up their own minds. I didn't edit-war when criticism of Rosenwald was added to the lead even though there is no requirement that negative information be included in the lead (see, again, Barack Obama, a featured article), although I did make several reversions to wording that violated BLP as it tried to put the words of Rosenwald's opponents in Wikipedia's mouth. I didn't have a hissy-fit when Orange Mike removed text that was mostly about Rosenwald's relatives even though I believe a lot of readers would have found the information interesting and there was no harm in it remaining (I'm an inclusionist). And, I do still believe that Nina Rosenwald should be allowed to speak for herself, explicitly sourced to her Gatestone bio, and that this is expressly permitted by WP:SELFPUB for lesser known figures, local consensus here notwithstanding.

But my experience on this article tends to confirm what I've seen on other articles—that it is almost impossible to write an article about a person who is conservative, or in this case Zionist, that is NPOV. Editors who are anti-Zionist feel that if the article is not at least half negative about its subject, then it's POV, a promotional puff-piece, that could only have been written by a PR person, a POV-pushing ideologue or a troll. The Rosenwald-bashers have gotten all bent out of shape on this article by having their cherished political orthodoxies directly, bluntly and repeatedly challenged (when an editor challenges them this way, they call it "being tendentious"). But they are so convinced that they know the truth that they become un-self-critical and lose their very ability to recognize what is NPOV. The result is that articles they edit about people or organizations they don't like quickly become coat-racks of everything the subject ever thought, said or did that was "wrong". And, now that I'm not permitted, for a few weeks, to supervise the Nina-bashers on this article, it will likely become a coat-rack for all her "nefarious deeds".

Dougweller has taken me to task more than once for "misrepresenting what the sources were saying" (in the lead). That was never my intention. The problem was trying to come up with a general term to describe the organizations that Nina Rosenwald supports, other than the pro-Israel ones. My suggestion was "organizations that oppose islamization", but that was said to be POV. It's certainly more neutral than "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia", imho, but you may not agree. The lead still needs a neutral, general description of these organizations because she doesn't only donate to Zionist causes. Some of these organizations appear to be headed by Muslims, so there's no way they could be described accurately as anti-Muslim or anti-Islam organizations.

There's also some nonsense being mouthed about me being a Single Purpose Account. Well, I'm not. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will clear things up if you let us know the IP address you say you've used for several years. And the Obama article is irrelevant. We get this a lot - Article X does it this why, why can't this article do it this way to? And the answer is go fix article X if article X doesn't meet our guidelines or policies. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All anyone needs to know about my previous Verizon IP number is that it has a clean block log and that I was the only user. No vandalism anywhere. If negative opinions are required in the lead to ensure that a BLP has an NPOV, then the Barack Obama article is clearly deficient. You have claimed in several places that the Nina Rosenwald article was POV because it lacked negative opinions of its subject. What I'm asking you is, do you make the same judgment of the Barack Obama article? It has nothing negative in its lead. Yes, I know the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; it's a very useful dodge. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a reason IPs get treated differently - their address can change and if they don't want to state what their prior address was then no one can look at their earlier contributions. Or actually know that they aren't a sock, or for that matter that they aren't a new editor who's just smart enough to have studied how we work before starting to edit. Not having been blocked doesn't mean a lot. And at the moment, all we can do is treat you as a new editor insofar as looking at your edits goes. As for the Obama business, are you seriously comparing the two? If so, why not pick Ronald Reagan to complain about? Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned elsewhere what a great honor it has been to be treated like a new editor by Daniel Case and you. You still refuse to answer my direct questions about your opinion of the Obama article (which I don't believe I've complained about). If editors would judge each edit on its own merits, there wouldn't be any need for this unnatural fascination that some seem to have with block logs and sockpuppets and dynamic IP addresses and previous edit history and paid PR agents and COI and blah blah blah. I think a lot of that fascination comes from the need some have to build a case against an editor whose political viewpoint differs from theirs. Their snoopy attitudes and idle speculations get to be creepy, verging on paranoia. You are correct about block logs not meaning much. Look at Roscelese's. She should have been indeffed by now for all the edit-warring and POV-pushing she does. The reason she hasn't been is that her "progressive" political outlook coincides with that of the great majority of editors and admins here. And when conservative editors get driven away, NPOV also disappears in a lot of articles. Crisis pregnancy center is a prime example. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public announcement

The Supreme IP Court has made a determination in the matter of Mr. IP 72.66 v. Case & Weller.

The Court finds, unanimously, that sysop Daniel Case and sysop Dougweller are guilty of the heinous crime of untreated IP-phobia, an irrational fear of IP editors and IP edits.

The Court sentences Case and Weller, for their persistent, unrepentant and untreated IP-phobia, to be banned from this talk page.

Any edit to this page by either sysop will be summarily deleted, at the sole discretion of Mr. IP 72.66.

It is so ordered.

—published for the Court by Mr. IP 72.66.30.115, 17:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 :::::::::::::::See '''bolded''' answer above and Public announcement at bottom of page.  --[[Special:Contributions/72.66.30.115|72.66.30.115]] ([[User talk:72.66.30.115#top|talk]]) 18:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::WHY DO YOU KEEP REMOVING THE OUTDENT?! Leave it as it is. <span class=nowrap> -- [[User talk:Numbermaniac|<sup style="font-weight:normal; color:#00E">t</sup>]] [[User:Numbermaniac|<span style="color:#07E">numbermaniac</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Numbermaniac|<sup style="color:#00E">c</sup>]]</span> 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::Because there's no need to outdent here.  There's still plenty of room for your comment and following comments.  I am interested in learning more about the 8 colon maximum—where exactly can I read about this technicality; it's a new one on me.  (By the way, it's uncivil to shout at people and to order them around on their own talk pages.)  --[[Special:Contributions/72.66.30.115|72.66.30.115]] ([[User talk:72.66.30.115#top|talk]]) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::Because there's no need to outdent here.  There's still plenty of room for your comment and following comments.  I am interested in learning more about the 8 colon maximum—where exactly can I read about this technicality? It's a new one on me.  (By the way, it's uncivil to shout at people and to order them around on their own talk pages.)  --[[Special:Contributions/72.66.30.115|72.66.30.115]] ([[User talk:72.66.30.115#top|talk]]) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 === Thanks, numbermaniac ===
 Thank you for removing the Whosis tag Daniel Case put on this page without explanation and apparently without reason.  You can see I had some fun with it first.  "We can put those notices on any IP talk page for any reason" he says, or, apparently, for no reason at all.  It's clear that the fellow has "issues" with IP editors.  We're not even allowed on his talk page.  --[[Special:Contributions/72.66.30.115|72.66.30.115]] ([[User talk:72.66.30.115#top|talk]]) 14:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)