Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Causteau. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
|
You may feel that someone who makes a major re-edit and then expects discussion before someone does a revert is being unfair. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. --80.200.59.250 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To all viewing my talk page: the above "sockpuppetry case" template was added by a user called Gadaa (talk · contribs). Gadaa is an editor with a pending sockpuppet case that is upset with me over my reluctance to allow him and his many different usernames to insert POV and original research into the Press TV article as well as a couple of other pages around Wikipedia. Notice the above template is empty; it's just a heading with no links in it. This is because there is, in fact, no open sockpuppetry case that he can link to. The above is Gadaa's way of: 1)attempting to cast aspersions on my editing, 2)to discourage me from further standing in his way, and 3)to get me to delete the above template (like he did here with regard to his own very real sockpuppet case) so that he may then turn around and loudly proclaim that I am trying to "conceal" my open sockpuppet case, nevermind the fact that there is no sockpuppet case on me, open or otherwise -- just an annoying blank template some bitter, irrational editor put on my talk page. Causteau (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edits all seem fine even if they are not always my preference, which is of course the best any Wikipedia editor can ask for. In my opinion it is up to the two of us to decide when to remove the warning box on the article (which might be discouraging others from contributing). I'm happy that I've made all the points I wanted to make, and I think you understand and perhaps even sympathize a bit with them. Most importantly I am starting to think you are not going to start doing large reverts. If that is true, then please go through the article again, make sure it is "reasonable" enough that we've got rid of anything which might now be, or might easily be edited into, something against our core concerns, and perhaps you can do the honors of removing that box. By the way, some of the bits you edited could still have better sourcing! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- I've noticed that you've been editing back some of my recent categorization changes. I've also been told by another user that there is some disagreement with them. Could you tell me your reasoning for language article categorization so I can understand better how you'd prefer it done? Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you remember getting into a revert war with Afbibwei (talk · contribs) in the Arab world article back in March, but Afbibwei has been uncovered as being one of the two dozen sockpuppets used by Egyegy (talk · contribs). For more info, please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: you may want to explain the reasons why this was not a civil war on the Talk page. If you did this, it would bring you in line with Wikipedia's suggested best practices, as explained at WP:BRD. -- llywrch (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You have my aid. I have seen this many, many times before. Anonymous editors looking to insert their own personal opinions believe that by being persistent and rude that they can get their way. It's nothing new. The same guy was inserting POV edits on other articles too. I'm always glad to help with these things for the sake of keeping Wikipedia POV free. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk about POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Is something wrong with you? I want to keep the article factual and accurate and, hours after I fixed it with a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, you revert it and call your version a consensus version. Let it go. Why don't you just leave your fanaticism aside and have a shred of respect for yourself, only for a while, and agree with the version as it is written in Encyclopedia Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
. Do you think whoever reads your comments will not bother to actually see through your lies and actually check the history page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources you supplied support your argument that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". Your first source simply asserts that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". The second source is a series of pay-per-view articles that also makes no mention of Saladin coercing anyone to do anything, let alone "forcing" Egyptians to convert to Sunni Islam. The third source only states that "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam". The fourth source's -- some guy's blog -- lone mention of Saladin is in the following benign phrase: "Al-Azhar is perhaps the world's oldest continuous university and has been since the time of Saladin a major center of Sunni religious authority". And the fifth states that "Saladin converted the university into an agency of orthodoxy as part of his war against Western crusaders". Again, nowhere does it state that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". That's original research, plain and simple.
I think i've figured out who this guy is. I opened up a case on WP:SSP, if you have the time see if you can go on there and compare the editing histories. Any comments would be much appreciated. I knew something seemed familiar about this guy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a serious problem at the Press TV article. Any detailed criticism of Press TV is being deleted by you repeatedly. That could translate to vandalism. But it is better to discuss this issue since you seem genuine about your edits. Removing sourced articles and deleting whole sections does not help. Since your intention seems defending Press TV, It would be more appropriate to make edits by adding "the otherside of story" or the opposing views instead of randomly deleting sourced sections. Thank you. --Gadaa 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added {{Failed verification}} to the citation and I left a note for the editor. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Middle East, 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. Also, please read WP:NPOV. Pushing an agenda against Turkey doesn't help when you're making large deletions of cited material either. Rushyo Talk 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I think I made a mistake with regards to what was actually added or removed. I or Wikipedia had mixed up the content and so I thought the other edits (the incorrect ones you had reverted) were yours. Apologises. -Rushyo Talk 10:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
You have written The archipelago of Socotra was part of the Governorate of Aden, but recently, the government of Yemen attached it to the Hadhramaut Governorate. Could you please tell me where have you found this information? -- Xfigpower (yak yak) 13:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
How is that information OR? All that is does is explain the evidence from the most important source on the man, without drawing any firm conclusions. I have successfully defended its inclusion in the past, so I do not understand your current disagreement. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi: two things. Please use the Talk page (as I did) when making major or controversial changes in articles. 2: please don't move references which happen to include link out of the references section. Please see the Manual of Style pages on references if you are unfamiliar with this. As these references apply directly to topics covered in lead, they need to remain in references. They may also be placed additionally in External links if you like. Thank T L Miles (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to cause offense: it was not my intent! I would ask that you Assume Good Faith, as well as civility. As far as references please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links_sections
All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic. The Wikipedia guideline for external links that are not used as sources can be found in Wikipedia:External links.
I would note, and again not offense is intended, that these are Wikipedia policies, which while sometimes couter intuitive, are needed to build the encyclopedia in collaboration.
Please also do take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus on how we can use the Talk page on building a article all of us can be pleased with. I have no desire to get involved in a revert war, but adding an edits summary that my edits are POV and you're removing them is not really consensus building, is it?
Again, not trying to make you life difficult, but we need to find a happy middle ground here. If that can't be done, I'm happy to engage in any Dispute resolution you might suggest. All the best, T L Miles (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Causteau. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.