User talk:Heqwm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:37, 26 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Heqwm, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --evrik 13:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your change to Boy Scouts of America because it added nothing to the article. Saying that their are examples where a group has been less than honest could apply to any group, there is no reason to put such bland, unsourced, statements into an article. Johntex\^talk 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preface to my comment was meant to explain the relevance. I have edited it to make it more clear.Heqwm 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new wording is slightly better (very slightly) but this is still something that should be cited. I have reverted your change again. Please be aware we have a policy on how many times a single person may revert an article. You may read the policy at WP:3RR. Please be aware that violating this policy could be grounds for blocking your account. Since your initial changes have been so controversial, I urge you to try to get consensus on the Talk page of the article. Johntex\^talk 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide edit summaries when you edit an article or Talk page. Help:Edit summary says "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline." Thank you, Johntex\^talk 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that I am lying constitutes a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Johntex\^talk 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine massacre

Hello. You added a few sentences to this article concerning statements by Darrell Scott and cited the website rachelscott.com to back them up, since then, the link you added to the site has been taken down and is no longer available. Since the statements may be considered controversial and non-neutral when not backed up by a citation, I have removed them. If you can find alternate citation links to the statements you added, then we will add the sentences back, but I am letting you know that they have been removed for now due to no longer having citations, which may cause NPOV violations. Thank You. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath and relax

I think you are overly anxious to assume that everyone is out to silence your point of view. I am trying to help you, but you seem to resist every effort. It is so simple for you to get the information that you would like to see included in the Wikipedia, but you have to do it in appropriate manner, and writing things that offend other editors or may you look like an agenda-pusher are not likely to help.

Here's what you need to do: 1. Provide a direct reference to the claim in the Dale case. You'll need a source for a direct quote that illustrates the point you are trying to make. Do you have that? This is the essence of Wikipedia - verifiability. You can say that they claimed something all you want, but until someone can verify it, it would be continually deleted by someone who doesn't like it. 2. Provide another direct reference to the claim in the San Diego case. Same issue.

These are critical starting points that cannot be skipped. There will be other discussions that will need to be had about the format, location, notability, etc. of all of this, but those discussions would be premature without this information. Put a post on my Talk page when you have this information and we can discuss how to proceed from there. --NThurston 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but point out that the way you are approaching this is certainly not helping your case. You seem to want to take every effort to offend everyone, including those that want to help you. Frankly I am disappointed that you insist on making broad generalizations instead of giving specific examples, supported by facts. If you are serious about having this information included, follow advice. If not, please stop wasting everyone's time. --NThurston 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community probation

As per a discussion on AN:I, you are now under Community probation with regard to all Boy Scouts of America-related articles. For the next month, you are forbidden to edit any of these pages as well as the associated talk pages. Should you violate this probation, you will be blocked from editing all together for an appropriate amount of time. Should your mediation case find a different remedy upon its conclusion, discusssion may take place on whether it should supercede this decision. --InShaneee 14:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This probation does not stop you from coming on over and discussing the issue at MedCab, so please feel free to do so. With any luck, we can resolve this within the week and your probation will be lifted. :) Markovich292 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAVE

I made an edit summary forgetting that you had made two summaries, one that did attempt to address neutrality. Although it might seem that your edits were towards NPOV, they lean towards giving undue weight to a fringe-to-nonexistant position in circles of language studies. You can check the talk page for very lengthy discussions on the matter. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BfC

Please stop adding unsourced personal commentary. Also familiarise yourself with WP:3RR. You may have broken it already. smb 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert you (for a second time). You are already in violation of 3RR. If you change it back then I will consider reporting you. smb 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling my sourced claims "unsourced". Apparently, you're the one who need to familiarize yourself with 3RR, as it clearly states that it does not apply to vandalism. I have reported you and ILike2BeAnonymous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bowling_for_Columbine_Vandalism_.28Smd_and_ILike2BeAnonymous.29 Heqwm 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Also, please familiarize yourself with the policy to assume good faith - the edits made by the other editors in this debate might be contentious but they are not vandalism. ugen64 02:41, 27 August 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is unjustified for two reasons: first, I only made three reverts. Secondly, I was responding to vandalism

Decline reason:

There appear to be very clear reverts at 1:01, 1:51, 1:58, and 2:04. I can see absolutely nothing that would indicate vandalism was being reverted; it looks like a basic content dispute. Kuru ^talk 03:56, 27 August 2007 (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.

The other two editors were pretending that their censorship was due to the lack of citations. One went so far as to call my edits bullshit (that's supposed to be good faith?). At 1:01, I added a citation to a claim, and reinstated the claim. That's not a revert, that's an edit. If you're just going by edit count, both of the other editors are in violation. No justification was ever given for the deletion, making it vandalism. Unlike the other editors, I started a discussion on the talk page to discuss my edits. Neither of the editors responded to that section. In yet another display of bad faith, smb started a NEW section, rather than respond to mine, and did so after his edit war with me, and AFTER I was blocked. What kind of person refuses to discuss their edits on the discussion page until AFTER his dissenters are blocked? Also, they have taken advantage of my blocking to revert my edits, making themselves in violation of revert policy.Heqwm 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Looking at your history, you've participated in editing nothing but controversial topics. Is there a reason for that? Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts of America

In one of your comments on the talk page you say that the editors of that page are not "willing to deal with criticism fairly". I think part of the problem is that you are not putting forward the criticism fairly. The section you want adding is very unclear, badly written and completely different from the normal way of writing on Wikipedia as expressed in the manual of style. I suggest you do what has been suggested and put it in your user space and work on it until is acceptable material. It is so badly expressed that it spoils what is recognized as a good article. If your edit was accepted, it would be perfectly reasonable for the good article project people to withdraw that recognition. I also suggest that you remain civil and not accuse people of lying, even if you are provoked. The point in the section above is a good one. Why do you not work in some uncontroversial areas to gain more experience of the ways of wikipedia and how to deal with disagreements on wikipedia? People just pushing a point of view, even if that point of view is needed for balance, generally do not have a happy time on wikipedia. Obsession on one point leads to bad editing. By the way, I am not associated with the Boy Scouts of America and never have been. I do not live in the USA. I also disagree with some of their policies, but those disagreements should have no place in how I edit wikipedia. --Bduke 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have made it clear that they are not willing to work to reach an acceptable version. My edit was deleted, and I was told that I didn't have cites. So I put in cites, and my edit was still deleted. I was told that it belongs in the membership controversies article, so I put it there, and it was deleted. I was told that just one person's actions was not notable, so I wrote about a wide variety of people. I was then told that the subject matter didn't merit that long of a section, and it was deleted. And on and on. It just looks like wikilawyering to me, making up whatever excuses they can think of to censor me. I completely reject the idea that civility requires that I ignore blatant dishonesty; on the contrary, not letting liars get away with it promotes civility.Heqwm 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis

I noticed that you've had some edits reverted on the C.S. Lewis page, and thought a little explanation might be in order (I was not the person who reverted them). The people who are reverting them are not reverting them because they think that your edits are wrong or that they misinterpret what Lewis wrote (though some might think those things). They are beging reverted because you have not cited a source who has written that critisism. As obvious as the idea seems to you, you can not add it unless you can show where some other verifiable source has also published that theory. It isn't enough to show where the idea comes from in Lewis's writings. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I didn't want you to think that people were reverting your additions simply because they disagree with you. LloydSommerer 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one who did the reversion, I would like to clarify that I actually do agree with your interpretation. Lloydsommerer is right in that it's about citing the criticism. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Please don't use capitals unless needed. Example: Allegations of Perjury should be Allegations of perjury. Richard001 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Hmm, I thought that headings were like chapter titles, and were capitalized accordingly. I'm not clear on why the first word is capitalized but the others aren't, but I'll try to keep that in mind.Heqwm 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

This edit has been reverted because you removed instructional text from a Wikipedia guideline page seemingly without consensus. That it is a statement about verification, an issue that you have had difficulty with, and your underhandedly marking it as a "grammar edit" raise some serious flags for me. I suggest that you keep your nose clean. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or organization members or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate." most definitely is grammatically deficient. It does not express a coherent thought (and is therefore not instructional), and rather than try to play guessing games as to what the author meant, and recognizing that whatever the intended thought was, it was not a central part of the section, I simply deleted it. While I might not be an expert in WP etiquette, reverting an entire edit simply because you have a problem with one part of it strikes me as rather inappropriate, as does using the passive voice to avoid mentioning that you were the one that reverted it. I also notice that you have refused to address my concerns regarding AAVE, and instead have followed me around reverting me on other pages. This makes five pages, which comprises nearly all of my recent edits.Heqwm 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have the capability to check that I was the one who did the revert (which is really not important to the overall point), you should also see that it was not "reverting an entire edit". Furthermore, all of my revert was indeed undoing what I found disagreeable. Your switching of nots makes for awkward phrasing, and you put hidden comments questioning the meaning of "sibling" when it would be better placed as a question in the talk page. I'm sorry if you had so much difficulty understanding the sentence. I didn't.

I've been keeping a close eye on you and you've been making poor edit choices. If you have a problem with this, then improve your editing. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you did the revert is not quite as important as the fact that you did the revert, then went out your way to avoid mentioning that you did the revert. Looking at it carefully, I changed "A" to "a". That was the only change than you retained. Expecting me to notice that it ridiculous. One of my switching of nots removed awkward phrasing that apparently was introduced out of a misguided belief that there was a problem with split infinitives. How in the world is "Articles should not usually be" less awkward than "Articles should usually not be"? In my edit, "not" modifies "be", not "usually". Hence, the article means that “it is usually the case that articles should not be". With the original wording, the article means that “It is not the case that articles should usually be”. In fact, now that I think about it, my version isn’t quite right either. A comma clearly belongs after the word "however" in "However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored." How you can expect me to accept you as an expert in language when you disagree with these edits is beyond me. I don't believe that on any of the articles, other than AAVE, you have discussed your issues on the talk pages, and your edit summaries are rarely informative. Since you claim that my edits are going against consensus, how you find one other editor that agrees that the section that I deleted makes sense, and you both give me you own explanations of what it means?Heqwm 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to quibble about language. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the?

I thought I'd contribute to your addition to second law of thermodynamics since I'd read an article in Scientific American that addressed poor creationist tactics in disputing evolution. But when I found the issue and actually went to the websites you cited to back up your claims I found that they didn't support your arguments. An additional look at the article and I realized that mention of a similar phenomenon was already there. Anyway, just thought I'd clarify. If you find better sources and want to add that info, you should probably put it in that section. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Loonymonkey 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Resolution

Please don't assume bad faith about other editors as you did in your edit summary:

Please don't post lies in edit summaries. These are not "inaccuracies".

The other editor's opinion is that they were inaccuracies. You should work with the other editors to create a consensus as to how the passages should be written instead of reverting. Jons63 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC) I didn't assume it, I concluded it from the evidence. When a verbatim quote is deleted in favor of an edited quote, and the edit summary rudely accuses me of bad faith, the conclusion is obvious. What is with this “opinion” silliness? That he deleted an accurate edit is a matter of fact, not opinion. And that ‘’he’’ was the one who reverted ‘’my’’ edits without discussing it or trying to find a consensus (in complete contradiction of his self-proclaimed virtues on his user page, as well as in contradiction to your implied account) is also a matter of fact.Heqwm (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us remain calm. Numerous refs mention the facts surrounding the WMD and AQ claims. To state that is not correct is contradicting sourced material. Second, However, the Resolution did not explicitly assert either claim; rather, it claimed that Iraq had WMD "capability", and that members of Al Qaeda were known to be in Iraq. Despite claimed that the war was based on lies, critics have yet to find a single claim in the Resolution which is clearly false. is not only unsourced and incorrect it also introduces a highly biased slant to the article. Case in point: there was no working relationship between AQ and SH (see the cited sources) and where are those WMD's or even the "capability?" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To state that is not correct is contradicting sourced material." From the context, it appears that youre trying to contradict me, but I don't see how your comment advances that goal. That the Resolution did not explicitly assert either claim absolutely is sourced; one need only look at the Resolution to see that. That critics have not found a claim which is clearly false is a negative claim; do you seriously expect me to prove it? What else is there? That critics have claimed the war is based on lies? You aren't seriously disputing that, are you? So what, exactly, are you claiming is "unsourced and incorrect"? Nice how anything that doesn't fit with your radical leftism is a "highly biased slant". As I have said, the Resolution never claimed that there was a working relationship between SH and AQ. If you want to claim that the Resolution implied false statements, fine. But anyone who claims that there is a single statement in the Resolution which is an outright lie is simply being dishonest. Now, the Resolution cites Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capability. It does not cite Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, YOUR edit is inaccurate and unsourced. Since you have been informed of the error, and yet you continue to make a claim that you know is false, your editing is clearly vandalism, and if you continue to remove the word "capability", I will seek administrative action. There is simply no room for disagreement on the Contents section. When discussing what a document says, we should quote what it actually says, rather than editing it for political convenience. In the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda section, you again are restoring unsourced statements. The "cite" for the claim that WMD and AQ were the main reasons is simply an article saying that there were 27 rationales. It doesn't actually say what any of those rationales are, let alone make any determinations as to which arguments were "principal". It's quite the pot calling the kettle black when you insist on including completely unsourced claims, yet refuse to allow me to present any opposing views on the basis that it's "highly biased".Heqwm (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue discussion on the page, please read the previous discussions there before asserting your opinion as fact. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture War

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to culture war, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments

I have again removed your change to Ten Commandments. If you read the discussion on the talkpage between myself (and various others) and Steve kap (talk · contribs) you will immediately appreciate that there is substantial controversy about this. As far as all the mainstream interpretations go, the words "Ten Commandments" refer to what was written on the tablets, and that these are identical with what is listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

I think a major problem is that some editors believe that the "Ritual Decalogue" theory is WP:TRUTH. Whatever it is, we cannot escape the reality that this theory is not widely accepted and therefore should not be presented as such. Please join in the discussion on Talk:Ten Commandments if you have any further insights. JFW | T@lk 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd asked you nicely on Talk:Ten Commandments not to make further attempts at getting your point into the article without trying to find consensus. Could you please address my points on the talkpage before having further tries in the article itself? JFW | T@lk 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you asked me to simply give up and let you have your way, but you did so politely. I am not trying to get a point into the article. You are making a completely unsupported claim, and I am trying to remove it. By claiming that I am trying to get a point in, when the situation is the opposite, you are misrepresenting the situation. I have already addressed your points on the talk page, and it's rather arrogant for you to declare that I haven't. It's also rather rude to say "I've already addressed this issue; see my response to others".Heqwm (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to "let me have my way". We are continuing to discuss a solution that will satisfy all sides. I don't think I am "making a completely unsupported claim", and the version you are trying to change is the one that has been in place for some time.

Continuing to making edits, especially removal of perfectly suitable sources (diff), will just lead to our dispute being treated as an edit war. If it is your desire to have the article protected, then please request protection. JFW | T@lk 07:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-barnstar

Which would be what, exactly? Please provide diffs to support your allegations. Johntex\^talk 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I've already provided you with diffs. You've simply lied about what they contain.Heqwm (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether true of not, posting that is a personal attack. You may be blocked in the future if you continue. Wizardman 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting facts is a personal attack? Surely if Johntex thought that being a liar is something to be ashamed of, he wouldn't so blatantly engage in lying. Why is mentioning someone's lies blockable, but actually lying isn't?Heqwm (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 I've already provided you with diffs.  You've simply lied about what they contain.[[User:Heqwm|Heqwm]] ([[User talk:Heqwm#top|talk]]) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 :Whether true of not, posting that is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. You may be blocked in the future if you continue. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
+Reporting facts is a personal attack?  Surely if Johntex thought that being a liar is something to be ashamed of, he wouldn't so blatantly engage in lying.  Why is mentioning someone's lies blockable, but actually lying isn't?[[User:Heqwm|Heqwm]] ([[User talk:Heqwm#top|talk]]) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)