User talk:Cathar66

December 2014

Hello, Cathar66, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Murry1975 I only have one operational account on Wikipedia. I used to be known as Cathar11 but as I've forgotten the password i cant access it anymore. I act alone. If you need to know more talk anytime Cathar66 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

3RR Violation?

Just wanted to inform you that I did not make a 3RR violation and your unexplained revert was not necessary.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies there were so many reversions I lost track of who did what. CATO Opinion pieces are not a reliable source. And yes I read the totally unscientific basis for the allegations which were a confabulation of half truths, lies and selective statistics. The original article on the CATO website.Cathar66 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It was originally in an education magazine but the content that was in the article is in the form of a commentary. I'm not sure if we can judge article as such though from reliable sources, that is why I opened up a discussion that I will inform only two other about that are fairly neutral. Please feel free to leave your comment.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I won't invite anyone since I'll probably get accused for canvassing.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

;)Cathar66 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict

Hi. Your edit to Human Resources (Non-Profit) caused an edit conflict. You'll note that I put two banners at the top of the article indicating that I'm in the middle of a big rewrite. Your editing interrupts my progress. Please take note next time if {{under construction}} or the like is present. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Chris Troutman (talk I noticed the article was listed for deletion and just glanced at the heading before reading the article and then edited a faulty ref. I added it to my watchlist as I thought it was worth saving. No harm taken or intended.Cathar66 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of things

1. Please don't mark wholesale revisions of text as "minor". 2. You have the onus reversed - there is no consensus to include that material. Please read WP:ONUS, which documents an English Wikipedia policy. Specifically the line that reads "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." 3. If you want to participate in the discussion on consensus building, please do so on the talk page. You have not done so to date. If you delete the material again without discussion, I will report this behavior. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Don't Wiki lawyer me User:Brad Dyer. There are already two other editors who want to keep this section in. you are the person going against the consensus for inclusion. Cathar66 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

there are 3 editors pushing for inclusion, but not supporting their POV with policy-based arguments. I have given you the policy based argument for exclusion, and am supported in this by another user. You do not have consensus for including it. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Carmel reverts

How do the quotes enhance your knowledge about Carmel? This revert is totally unjustified. The quote is focused on the nearby village, not on Carmel. Please explain me how this is related! in addition WP:NPS requires quotes to be part of relevant conversation. Since the article doesn't speak about difference between life style of settlers and Palestinians, please explain how they are relevant. Ashtul (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

Hello! In this edit you removed content from the Landmark Worldwide article, with an edit summary indicating that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not reliable sources. What do you base that understanding on? Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Tgeairn A tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not WP:RS. The Irish Daily Mail is not used as RS in Wiki in Ireland.Cathar66 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I was not aware that Irish Daily Mail was considered tabloid journalism. Isn't Mayfair pretty much like Playboy magazine? We use Playboy as a source here on en. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Tgeairn Are you an employee or a volunteer at Landmark?Cathar66 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

See my response in this section. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Tgeairn You didn't answer it there either.Cathar66 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

@ Tgeairn You're becoming irritating . Stop WP:Wikilawyering.

Michael Langone

Hello. With this edit, you restored content and a reference. Your edit summary indicated that the content is sourced to the Huffington Post. Please review the source again. While the link points to the Huffington Post, the content at the linked page is a self-provided bio (blog author bio). Even though the site is Huffington, the source is still self-provided (and therefore not reliable). I request that you self-revert. Thanks for your attention, Tgeairn (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict revert

I only just now noticed you reverted all of my edits in the article that I made two weeks ago by saying I conducted an unexplained removal of sources. You were mistaken, I did not remove any sources. If you would carefully check you would see I replaced the older info and sources (some of them dating back to early September) with more UP-TO-DATE info and NEWER sources (published in late December). I hope that clears it up. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies EkoGraf the lack of an edit summary caused this misunderstanding.Cathar66 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

I have suppressed some of your recent edits for revealing non-public, personal identifying information. Google is not wonderful on-wiki, do not do this again or you may be temporarily blocked to prevent further disruption. Keegan (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

KeeganApologies. I accept what you say and realise that I went too far. I will not do it again.Cathar66 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now read the section and understand its contents and would have been more circumspect if I had been aware of it beforehandCathar66 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Keegan (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. 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.  _→AzaToth 16:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cathar66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand and accept that the block was necessary and appropriate forharassing behavior, I will not do it again, and I will henceforth make productive contributions instead Cathar66 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I think Cathar66 understand the issue now _→AzaToth 04:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I object to this block: how could one possibly reveal a COI as every attempt to put it in words is considered an harassment of other users? Catar66 was absolutely right, and not only the harassment but also the encyclopedic damage is persistently caused by the user with the COI. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Now I have read the guidelines that govern this subject, I understand that the outing was not allowed. This means that an editor with a COI cannot be unmasked, as long as such an editor consistently lies about his COI, or skilfully evades the question. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from Theobald Tiger, however on Wikipedia we comment on the content, not the contributor. We do not expose personal information to gain a leg in a content debate, period. Keegan (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A period means that whatever I reply will be taken as mere sound, noise actually, so I had better keep silent. But what you say is disastrous for encyclopedic content. Deceivers might very well be extremely skilfull in their deceiving practice, onlookers are generally not well-informed, not always keen, and mostly dumb, and though you should - of course - always try to reveal a COI by content-driven argument first, there should be an end to it. When I arrived at the Landmark scene, I became immediately involved, unexpectedly so, in an Arbitration process, including offensive, insinuating and unfounded accusations with respect to my history on nl.wiki. Then I had to fight like a lion to stop the smearing of reliable sources. The next step the COI editor took was trying to have sanctions enforced on me. And you, Keegan, are perfectly content with your impeccable first principles, defending the block of Cathar66 who was absolutely right and who has done more to solve the Landmark trouble than most of us. I am grateful for the occasion to comment here. I hope Cathar66 enjoys his hot whisky's. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Having read the above unblock request, and as one of the editors that was on the receiving end of the behavior; given that blocks are intended to prevent damage rather than punish, I have no objection to the editor being unblocked. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Landmark Worldwide". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 February 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafiq Husseini

I'm normally willing to undelete stuff upon a good-faith request, but what I deleted was perfectly useless and an extreme example of A7. Below find the entire contents of the article.

There were three edits in the history, all by User:478jjjz, and what I've given you is the final one; the original was just the first sentence, and the other two expanded it. You'd be better off just creating a new article :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, on Sam Smyth, it's rather humourously not the guy you're interested in writing about. The first half sentence reads "Sam Smyth is an teenage sensation, known for...", and the remaining 2½ sentences are just attack stuff; it was probably something written by some classmate who had a beef with him. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, life is funny sometimes. I did do a short bit of background research on Rafiq in early January and there are plenty of online sources on him. I of course remember that piece of Hasbara which, if my memory serves me right, was part of a general Wiki problem at that time. I'm lazy so if something already exists why bother redoing work. I'm deleting the info you sent me as none of it is of any relevance to me. This I presume is a correct exception to normal etiquette. Revert if not. Take it easy. Cathar66 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no complaints; it's not like you're editing my comments to make it look like I said something I didn't :-) Agree on the "why bother redoing". Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't realised that you were the editor that blocked me and humbly hope that you will notice that I am following your instruction to make useful contributions to the letter. Sorry again about my poor behaviour I will in future try to be better and construct new articles, like Rafiq or San Smyth in a more constructive manner.Cathar66 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)