User talk:Leatherstocking: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:15, 10 September 2009

Hello from Bob

Hello, Leatherstocking, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, you can ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on this page and ask your question here. Happy editing! — Bob • (talk) • 01:33, July 31, 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights Riot

Hi. Thanks for requesting comment on the article. Edstat clearly thinks he owns it, and he reverts anybody else's edits. On top of that, he's one of the least civil editors I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, it may be a little while before anybody comments. In the meantime, Edtstat is just loading the article full of more POV. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I blew my chances at a favorable outcome at WP:ANI when I responded to Edstat on the Talk page with the same kind of nastiness he exhibited toward me. Based on what I've seen in other disputes, the way an editor conducts her/himself in a disagreement is taken into account when admins review these sorts of conflicts. For the most part, I've been trying to stay out of Edstat's way — although today I started doing some fact-checking of my own, and he's misrepresenting a lot of the article's sources. We'll see what happens if anybody responds to the RfC. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Your request at WP:AN/I has been marked as resolved. [1]. Tiptoety (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom decision

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

I am drawing your attention to these standing principles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save your threats for someone who is actually promoting LaRouche. I don't like fanatics on either side of the Great LaRouche War. When one such fanatic tried to claim that Coriere della Serra was not a reliable source, I reverted him. I am wondering why you did not. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I drew your attention to these principles last year, but you do not seem to have taken them to heart. You made a complaint about another editor using this exact enforcement provision, yet it seems much more applicable to your own editing. If you commit to changing that editing behavior then there won't be a need for enforcement. What's it to be? Will Beback talk 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified my request on the talk page here. Please take a look at what I said, and if you need to denounce me, go to it. As far as my own behavior is concerned, I am open to discussing it, but the matter is complicated by the fact that you and I have an ongoing content dispute, and I have been openly critical of your own behavior. My suggestion would be to have an uninvolved admin approach me about any policies you think I am violating. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia. Comments like this one are needlessly uncivil.[2] Please read WP:CIVIL and be more respectful of your fellow editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting deletion of edits by a banned user is not helpful, and may be considered meatpuppetry, per WP:BAN. If you think that material should be added please do so in your own words based on your own research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual source

Can you please explain how you came to find the source you added in this edit? [3] That obscure page was created by banned user and prolific sock puppeteer user: Herschelkrustofsky. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it by surfing the web. You don't have something more constructive to do than pore over my edits from over a year ago, searching for evidence that I once visited a web site that is connected to your arch-enemy? Do you have any evidence that he has any connection whatsoever to that website? You need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who caused me to look into your account list when you claimed that you'd never promoted the LaRouche POV. And now you explain your edits by asserting an amazing coincidence. Not only do you share the same interests as HK, but you also just happened to use his obscure little AOL page as a source for an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to claim that adding an inline citation to a quote from a classical composer is "promoting the LaRouche POV"? Please, go and peddle your WP:BAIT somewhere else. --Leatherstocking (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my claim. My suspicion is that you are HK, or an associate of his. The appearance is that this account is either a sock or a meatpuppet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "appearance," it's a "delusion." I asked whether you had any evidence for your claim that the classical music site was owned by Herschelkrustofsky, and your silence was deafening. Face it: you're in a blind rage because I demonstrated that your team-mate Dking has a rather obvious COI problem. You have a bad case of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and you need to take a break or get counseling or something. In any event, kindly respect my wishes and stop trolling my talk page. --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it were a delusion, however HK has used at least 25 socks. You have behaved in a manner similar to HK, taking similar positions in articles and even linking to his webpage. In the history of Wikipedia, so far as I'm aware, HK is the only editor to have ever linked to that page. Plus you. This isn't a blind rage, it's a sober assessment. I'll continue to investigate the matter and take action if the evidence warrants it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krassner

I removed the COI tag you placed on Paul Krassner because you never explained the tag on the talk page. I don't see any editor using the name "Krassner" or "PaulK", or anything to lead me to believe that the subject is editing. Who the conflicted editor might be, or what conflict they may have, isn't at all clear. Please fill in those details before restoring the tag. Also, even if a peson with a COI has edited the page, their edits should have been significant in order to merit the tag. Will Beback talk 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring banned editors

Please do not disrupt the project by editing on behalf of a banned editor. If you think an edit made by a banned user is wortwhile, then please explain why and seek consensus before restoring it. Will Beback talk 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you nicely, but you've twice restored the material without consensus. Have you familiarized yourself with WP:SOCK and WP:BAN? Will Beback talk 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring on Views of Lyndon LaRouche

You have been edit warring with Will Beback over the AIDS section in the article. You have not established that your preferred version is a consensus on the talk page.

Additionally, please be aware that there is are several active Arbcom decisions related to LaRouche topics, and your actions both in editing the article and in proxying for banned editors on the pages are in violation of those decisions. This article has previously spent much of the last two years fully protected so only administrators can actually edit it, [4], [5] and numerous problem editors have been permanently blocked from editing. Your participation here is nearing the point that further actions will be required.

Please see the following Arbcom cases: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Due to the edit warring, your account is blocked for 24 hrs from further edits. Tomorrow you will be able to participate freely again. However, please be advised that further edit warring or violations of the arbcom cases or other policy will result in further enforcement actions. This is not a good topic to go around pushing buttons and pushing the limits of Wikipedia policy.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Four reverts spread out over 17 days is hardly edit warring. The reverts were appropriate, because BLP violations were involved. I was fully engaged in negotiations on the talk page, which have been successful. I believe the blocking admin acted in haste without studying the situation sufficiently. For more information, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#Improper block by Georgewilliamherbert. My block has expired, but I would like to have my clean record restored.

Decline reason:

No can do. Another admin (Note that I do not associate myself with politics articles or areas under ArbCom sanction; it's more stress than it's worth) will have to make a one-second block in your log to indicate that the past block was in error; admins cannot delete log actions and the error does not rise to the level of oversighting. Also, this is not the purpose of the {{unblock}} template. Declined as both moot and inappropriate use of the unblock request. Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 15:35, 20 July 2009 (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.

Team

Would you prefer that I use the word "team"? Will Beback talk 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to interpret your answer.[6] Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Will Beback talk 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search Result

Currently I'm busy for the next two days, but this is the rough google result I have search the Chinese name of LaRouche.

Compare the result title with the script 现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药 (use Ctrl+F if you have problem), and you can get an rough idea about the popularity this piece. Jim101 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is important to note. The piece has been carried by People's Daily, which means this piece has been offically endorsed by the Communist Party of China, and which in term offically endorsed by the people of China.

This is a sign that shows the Chinese propaganda machine is running at full power behind this piece...Jim101 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the nature of publications that matters in China, its the source. If you can understand Chinese, you will notice that every publications that carried the story has a disclaimer about the story was originally from China Youth Daily. Now, you worry about the amount of control the Chinese government has on the accuracy of the story. The problem is that in this case the story flows from top down (government publications to private channels) rather than bottom up, the Communist has absolute control over the content of the story. The only way to verify the accuracy of the interview is from LaRouche himself — fortunately this aspect checked out okay per WP:V. Jim101 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Mediation of LaRouche movement articles

Hello, in response to a mediation request I've opened up a topic here, your input is appreciated. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Leatherstocking, you asked for the mediation so please participate in it. Will Beback talk 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I've written up a summary for the current disputes regarding the Lyndon LaRouche article, and a summary for the disputes at the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article, and have included them on the mediation page. Please look over those summaries and give your input, it's quite possible that I have misrepresented your side of the disputes or have left something out, if so please let me know. If we can agree on the nature of these disputes then hopefully we can come to a satisfying conclusion to them. Thanks! -- Atama 頭 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

Please do not forum shop, as you have done here: WP:AE thread [7], WP:ANEW thread [8], and WP:BLPN [9]. This is a form of disruption to the project. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

By placing this report, you are engaging in forum shopping. Please do not continue doing this, as it is considered disruptive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, guys. I was unaware of that policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche

Would you please respect the "in use" tag? You are reverting my edits as I am making them. I need to leave the tag on because I'm fixing and moving references as I go along, and moving sections, so section editing isn't practical. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Would you please respect the "Controversial" tag? --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Courtesy link. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

This edit of yours is a BLP violation because it relies on a primary source, and the issue has not been mentioned by secondary sources. It also violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case, in that you're editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support. If that kind of editing continues, you're likely to be subject to sanctions. Please read the BLP policy and the ArbCom case carefully before making further edits about living persons.

I should add that I'm writing this as an editor, not as an admin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 ==AN/I==
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=312136862 Courtesy link]. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 05:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
+== BLP ==
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._J._Weberman&diff=prev&oldid=313010648 This edit] of yours is a BLP violation because it relies on a primary source, and the issue has not been mentioned by secondary sources. It also violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case, in that you're editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support. If that kind of editing continues, you're likely to be subject to sanctions. Please read the [[WP:BLP|BLP]] policy and the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2|ArbCom case]] carefully before making further edits about living persons.
+I should add that I'm writing this as an editor, not as an admin. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)