User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fascism

I am referring to fascists in power. I cannot find anyone who says that fascist government was not right-wing. Sternhell thought that fascist ideology developed from left-wing thought but that they moved to the Right once in power. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Articulocity, Factchecker? You talkin' bout me? Have you studied my typos at all. ;) --FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for all I know you could have a harelip IRL. I am talking about pristine word usage. The best word I can think of is, congratulations. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind your questions. I believe that Wikipedia is an experiment in a kind of community and a kind of process. Both involve certain policies, the one inviolable one, NPOV, being central, and the principle that anyone can edit any page any time (Jimbo's declaration of principles has a slightly more circumspect and nuanced formulation), made possible by wiki technology. I believe that this basic structure creates endemic problems or challenges, like the ones faced when editing the Sarah Palin article prior to the election: what happens when people with passionately held and antagonistic beliefs clash? the wiki technology means that people must cooperate, and as in any system where people must cooperate, this means that there are many situations where none gets what they want, but everyone gets something they can live with. I earnestly believe that people acting in good faith, who earnestly comply with the core content policies of NPOV, V, and NOR, can collaborate to write very good articles. But it can take a lot of time and effort. Some consider that a failing, I consider it the cost of doing business, and well worth it.

I think there are other problems that arise from the culture of Wikipedia and need to be addressed. I think that because this started on the internet, the community has long been dominated by white men working in IT or applied sciences. There is nothing wrong with that, but such people have a communication and interaction style that has made Wikipedia unhospitable to others, especially some women and minorities. I think as Wikipedia grows we must make conscious efforts to recruit a more diverse group of editors. If we can do this, this problem will be solved.

I think another weakness is a lack of another kind of diversity - not enough editors in the social sciences, humanities, or fine arts. Consequently, there are fewer articles on these topics, and they either are not good, or are good thanks to the effort of one or two editors.

I wish we could think of policies or strategies to address these two weaknesses but I do not think they are intrinsic or fundamental to the project.

I do think that the creation of ArbCom created the seed of a problem, by which I mean the development of some centralized authority, or hierarchy. I think these two things are anathema to Wikipedia. With regard to the policy council, my point was not that Wikipedia is perfect and there are no problems - there are problems, I have just mentioned two, and we need to address them. I just do not believe that ArbCom had the authority to create the council, and that any council should be created by the community, either with members who are elected 9like ArbCom iself0 or with an open membership (like the way anyone can watch and work on improving any policy).

In fact, I think the biggst problem facing Wikipedia is the creep of hierarchy (service awards are one seemingly silly example; that some administrators believe they should be held to higher standards of behavior in return for more prestige or authority is another). I think we need administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards, and ArbCom, and oversight - but I think the greatest threat to Wikipedia is that these people may use their technological powers in non-transparent ways, and abuse them i.e. use technological powers to seek social power, power over people. I think there is a real risk of people with oversight abilities to out anonymous wikipedians and to harass them off-wiki. I think these are serious problems that definitely need to be addressed.

This kind of sums it up. I wrote two essays on wiki-process that further explain my views (of course, other editors contributed). They are the first two, here. Have I answered your question? If not, please let me know. I would be happy to answer any other questions you have. I am sorry my statement at the RfC was unclear and if you feel, based on what i wrote here, I could clarify it, I would be in your debt if you would show me how. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your new question, you have to answer a question: if someone does not agree with Wikipedia's principles, why would they want to come here? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we just disagree. My answer is simple: Wikipedia is not the only game in town. Aside from Conservapedia there is Encyclopedia Brittanica. If you want to speak in metaphors, Wikipedia is not a country you have to live in, no University Physics course is ever going to force you to read Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is like a game. If someone went to an ice hockey game and said "It's okay but I would much prefer they play with a bouncing ball on wood rather than a hard disk on ice," I would say "Well, don't keepo coming to ice hockey games, go to a basketball game!!" I would never let that person screw around with the rules of ice hockey!!

Wikipedia will never be the only gam in town. it is the only game in town only to lazy people who do not wish to take the effort to explore the other games. And this is tied up with what is wrong in Western education. No encyclopedia is perfect. There are flaws in encyclopedia Brittanica. There are flaws in Wikipedia. We need schools that can teach students how to assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of all sources of knowledge. Anyone who comes to Wikipedia thinking it is "the truth" or even thinking that all articles really will present a good account of all different views is just a mark, a sucker, a dope, a victim waiting to be hustled. No information source will ever be perfect. Wikipedia has some advantages over brittanica, Brittanica has some advantages over Wikipedia, and if you know how each encyclopedia is written, and by whom, and guided by which policies, then you can assess them critically and not be conned. I am speaking of the attitude of the reader of an encyclopedia article.

If you wish to write for an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the only game in town, you can look for a job with Encyclopedia Brittanica. You may find that they won't hire you. But this does not make WP the only game in town, it just means it may seem easier to edit than Encyclopedia Brittanica. Now come the policies. You may not have to sit through a job interview as you would with EB, but to be a success at WP you need to learn the policies and follow them. I think this is reasonable.

People are free to create their own competing encyclopedias. Others have tried and failed. But there is simply no serious barier to you if you want to write your own encyclopedia on the web. If you think Wikipedia is the only game in town, I can only infer that you do not think anyone would read your encyclopedia. But please do not blame Wikipedia. In fact, I would say that it is Wikipedia's policies (esp. NPOV, V and NOR) that give it the edge over othe encyclopedias using Wiki technology. So no offence but it seems kind of disengenuous if you are saying you want to edit Wikipedia because people read it, but you do not believe in the policies or principles.

If you have a fundamental problem with the polciies and principles, register a domain name and start your own encyclopedia using wiki technology and your own policies, and see if people join you. If your policies and principles are better than WPs, people will start to catch on. The cost will not be very high to maintain and if you give it a few years it may begin to compete with Wikipedia.

But if people prefer Wikipedia, why not open your mind as to the wisdom of th principles and policies? Of course this does not mean that Wikipedia is perfect. You know, some people still debate whether the designated hitter rule in baseball was a good idea. You can always propose a new policy and see if people support it. But it sounds very strange if you insist that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, and you do not believe in its policies, and you haven't proposed a new policy for people to vote on. You can't have everything. Am i misunderstanding your position? You have not really explained to me what about my explanation of why I like Wikipedia you find wrong. Maybe I am completely off-base and if so i apologize, but so far you have just hinted that you do not believe in Wikipedia and you don't say why. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, my views are well-developed because I have been here a long time. But if it helps any, I am a skeptic too. To be clear: I am not at all convinced Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia, or that it ever will be. I think it does have some advantages over Brittanica especially because I do have an idea about how their articles are written, I guess i would have to say I am askeptic aout Brittanica too!! But I am definitely a skeptic about Wikipedia. I was initially drawn to it because I anted to make sure that the few articles on topics I really care about aren't wrong. BUT: I do "get" the idea behind it (the principles and stuff I articulated above) and I think that it could work. I think it is an experiment. I think my being an editor (and reading any article) is a gamble. it may not pay off. It may be that in five years it collapses in on itself, an on-line data-base high school students use to cheat, like Cliff Notes, but good for little else. I have no idea. But I think that the principles, as I understand them are interesting enough that (1) I am willing o make a little gamble that maybe it really will work and (2) I am enough of a betting man to be glad to see one encyclopedia out there that is written and edited on completely different principles than any other. This paragraph is the most honest expression o why I stick around. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't judge you. But I would say I am the guy who will play hockey, not at all convinced I will be much good at it, or that my team will win. But even if my team loses I am not going to tell everyone else they should be playing basket-ball! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are in the same ball-park now. Perhaps a better metaphor would come from a casino - If I decide to play poker, I want to win. If I loose I may go over to the blackjack table, but I won't try to get the people at the poker table to change the rules of poker. The point is: I do not think one has to be convinced Wikipedia will work, to "play by the rules." I think when one contributes to Wikipedia the gamble is precisely this: that following these particular rules we can come up with a better encyclopedia than those that follow different rules. I am not convinced Wikipedia will be better than Brittanica, but I am glad that there exists this other encyclopedia that is daringly trying to build itself with very different rules than EB's. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa - reply

How did you know? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He certainly is an interesting character. Read this: Talk:Fascism/Archive 24#Horowitz and Bale quotes. It's one of my favourites. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: User_talk:Gwen_Gale#odd. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do...

Hope you're doing well, too. Coincidentally, I was thinking of you just the other day when things started percolating on this health care topic at Palin, recalling that you shined some sanity and balance on similar subjects in the past. I actually ignored her comment initially, dismissing it as yet another Palinism (for lack of a better term). "Death panels?" C'mon! Since then, the media has turned that into a rally cry for opposition to the reform bill. It's a mess... there's nothing but intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the debate. We need leadership that outlines, in simple bullet format and in an honest way, what the changes mean to Americans. My only hope is that no one breaks my government-administered, single-payer health care system which I have enjoyed for the past 35 years! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

e-mail

Well, as you may know, the other user has to have set his or her preferences to allow for an e-mail to be sent/receeived. Also, you have to have your preferences set to allow e-mails. If both conditions are met, on the left side menu there ought to be an option to e-mail this user. I am not the best person to ask as I seldom e-mail users and do not have my own e-mail setting enabled. So if in some design change they moved the link, I won't know about it. But the fact is, if you look carefully enough at a person's user page you should see a link for e-mailing the user .... if you do not consider the possibility that the person does not have his or her link enabled. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Copwatch

Hey Factchecker, I replied to your note on my talk. Peace, delldot ∇. 04:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks...

And great to hear from you again, my friend! Hope all is well. Fcreid (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, nice to hear from you. Hope you're enjoying a bright new year! Fcreid (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your topic heading, pretty much always!

Kidding (sort of). But...

Hi there, I have been quite inactive for some time but logged in to make a single, highly obscure edit, and saw your message. I can sympathize with what you describe but want to stress that this sounds like typical personal conflicts which inevitably arise in a setting such as Wikipedia for a variety of good and silly reasons and combinations thereof. I would guess that many users have felt similarly. While I can't devote the time to do much to help you, I'd say the best advice is to take a step back a bit, perhaps edit a different type of article, and take the initiative in avoiding conflict as the primary means of seeking compromise. The result of such an approach on the large scale tends to be bureaucratic, slow, and often wrong, but it is what it is given the circumstances which attend an online user-edited enyclopedia. If you are still frustrated by this issue, I'd recommend talking about it on a Wiki message board, talking to an admin, or perhaps shooting a message to the guy whose comment appears just before your own on this page, Fcreid. He is wise in the ways of getting along with other Wikipedians, and may have a sage word or two for you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after posting this same message on numerous locations around Wikipedia including Jimbo's talk page, B9 was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for refusing to accept consensus and work with other editors. There had already been a month long RFC on the subject, which B9 refused to participate in until the decision was reached that without his cooperation the only option option left was to pursue a full site ban. Thanks for trying though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Singular flags are generally deprecated on Wikipedia as they over-emphasize nationality without adding any information. I have therefore undone your restoration of the flag on the Greek protests article. It took a bit of searching as you didn't mention in the edit summary that you had restored it. --John (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it was me? If so, it was an accident. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. It was just an accidental by-product of restoring a previous version of the infobox. Sorry bout that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I thought it must be something like that. --John (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well met

I like what you are are doing, not that I am important. I might need your advice at some stage, because I am on a similar crusade. However, I see that you are up to your eyeballs in Greeks, so I will leave you to it for now. pietopper (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine what led you to think I'd be able to help, but I am happy to try, or at least point you to someone who might be better at it. However, be warned that I am only sporadically active and have gone months or years without checking my Talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest post on Talk:Michele Bachmann missing

I saw your latest post on Talk:Michele Bachmann in my watchlist, but when I went to the page to respond, I didn't see your post and searching for it was unsuccessful. Can you see it there? Drrll (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michelle Bachmann. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

The disruptive editor has been blocked for a week.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I felt a pang of guilt for willfully violating 1RR and reported myself to the admin too in case he wishes to take action. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No.

Your self claimed lack of comprehension, is not an excuse nor an invitation to restore your annoying comments at my talk page. Stop restoring your comments there once I've deleted them. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My English reading comprehension is just fine. What I'm trying to get across to you is that yours is fairly limited, and at the very least you should not be using the "Advanced English" userbox. You've repeatedly failed to understand clear English obviously supporting article text, and have wrongfully reverted, removed, or tagged article text due to your lack of understanding. Further, as I mentioned in the talk page comments that you keep deleting while complaining they are "insults", when you actually add text to an article it is always broken English — not just grammatically incorrect, but broken English.

Your recent summary reads: "I am neither discussing nor negotiating. I do not mind if th author is not able to understand, but it is quite simple: I do find that sort of comments as rude insults which solely deserve to be deleted."

Besides providing a further example of your English problems, this summary seems to reflect your unproductive attitude towards WP. "I do not mind if th author is not able to understand". That's great that it doesn't bother you, but it is not your prerogative to go around mangling WP articles simply because your English skills are limited yet you still insist on editing English WP. Why not try Spanish WP? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I still do not matter at all if all this has to do with your lack of comprehension or with your ability to trim down and decontextualize or with a common delirium. It will suffice here to mention that for a reasonable reader it would be enough clear that I was NOT claiming that I do not mind if people understand my edits at wikipedia. But then, for a reasonable reader it would be clear my point is: Whether YOU (Factchecker) are able or not able to understand that your recent comments are not welcome at my talk page, at any rate your recent comments will be deleted because I do find that sort of comments to be rude insults which solely deserve to be deleted. If YOU (Factcchecker) are still not able to understand this simple point, at any rate you are still NOT invited to restore your comments at my talk page NOR to abusively edit my user page, so you will be automatically reverted. I do neither really matter nor want to discuss your lack or excess of comprehension, due pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You [redacted] and have limited English ability and should not be editing English Wikipedia. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's your own talk page, no personal attacks. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy. Either find an admin to sanction me or mind your own business. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why bother with sanctions when a simple reminder will do? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm an admin! (I came here because I'm watch metal.lunchbox's talk page). Metal.lunchbox has kindly reminded you of our policy requiring no personal attacks. The reminder was fully appropriate, as your statement was unequivocally a personal attack. As long as you don't repeat that, no sanctions will be forthcoming. Should anyone notice any more personal attacks coming from this user, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Two other things, Factchecker. First, if someone deletes your comment from their talk page, then restoring it is edit warring. Our userpage policy very clearly says that you can delete almost anything from your own user talk page, and that doing so is acknowledgment that the message was read. While many editors use archiving, it is not mandatory, and, even if archiving is set up, an editor can feel free to pick and choose what is archived. The comments remain in the editing history. Second, you should never be editing another user's user page, unless you're reverting vandalism. Period. Userboxes are self-created things, and no one else can modify them. It was even recently established that userboxes can be a complete lie (an editor was using a userbox indicating over 75,000 edits, when they had less than 500, and it was firmly established that this cannot be removed by other editors). So, really, lets all get back to editing the encyclopedia and leave the dramaz behind. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michele Bachmann. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. You've been warned about edit warring on this page before. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

should we have controversy in the lede?

do you object to the specific text, or is it your opinion no controversy belongs in the lede of the krugman article? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My objections were that the material as written didn't summarize the relevant content from the article body, but was instead a much sharper claim than appeared below which was only sourced to two pieces whose only appearance was in the lead. For a claim like that to be in the lead, it would have to be the prevaling theme of what was below, instead of something cherry-picked to be more dramatic. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

can you think of any we could include in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; could you rephrase your question? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

can you think of any krugman controversy we could include in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to look at the article. Why do you ask? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

because you deleted the last controversy in the lede. if it is your opinion there is no reason we should have controversy in the lede, i can understand that as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. I removed the material for the reasons stated just above. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

the discussion thread on the page is quite long with many attempts to add any controversy to the lede, each rejected. i suggest the article is the worse for not following guidelines for including notable controversy. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to already include substantial notable controversy. This doesn't mean that we can just ignore WP policies in general in an effort to include controversy in the lead, ASAP, at any cost. Whatever goes in the lead needs to conform to policy, as well. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

good point. if so much of the article is controversy, why is none in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak to the edits I've personally reverted, which were objectionable for reasons already stated. As I said, the lead needs to observe policy, too. My suggestion would be to work towards a carefully fashioned lede that neither misrepresents nor overstates the criticism, as the recent edit did. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

then perhaps you have over corrected. in a good faith edit, you went from too much one way to zero the other way. instead of too much, we have none, which could be considered worse. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First, that's not true. What I've currently reverted to is a rather generic summary (by an experienced user other than myself) that doesn't say much, but also doesn't say too much, as it previously did, which was worse. It clearly indicates to the reader that there is going to be controversy discussed below. The treatment below is fairly thorough.

Second, what's there now is simply the WP:WRONG version while the issue is being discussed. I don't think it would be wise in the meantime to promote a free-for-all of individual editors each taking a stab at making an edit that will meet all objections.

Third, to the extent you think my edit was not the lesser of two evils, I'd disagree and say that potential source misrepresentation in the lead, combined with a weight problem in the lead, was clearly worse than the current WP:WRONG alternative, which at worst is merely a weight problem in the lead. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

the age of the article should be an indicator sufficient time has passed for vetting of controversies for the lede. the fact that not one single controversy about a man described as the most controversial economist has been allowed to stand in the lede is balderdash. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a course of action, or complaining about Wikipedia? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Some fairly drastic action taken [1]. The final paragraph of the intro has gone from having a fairly anemic close (which made the paragraph as a whole read rather like "Krugman says he's a liberal; his critics seem to agree") to containing a catalogue of blistering complaints against the guy. My edit will probably be reverted with extreme prejudice either by Freeloader or Vision Thing, neither of whom have shown much ability to contribute constructively on the level of facts, much less with proper diction, grammar or sourcing on this subject. Needless to say, I consider them only obstructive at this point. Technically, what I've supplied is a violation you might be concerned about, since it cites sources (and mentions a sentiment or two) not found in the Criticism section. However, in the spirit of balance, I think I've at least taken a step in the right direction. I do believe some treatment of controversy in the lead is owed to those readers who are (somehow) unacquainted with Krugman, considering that Krugman owes much of his notability to choosing controversy (but IMHO, is also right almost all the time, unlike many of his critics.) In any case, I request your diligent attention, and I thank you for your helpful comments on the discussion so far. Yakushima (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1RR notice: Planned Parenthood

I see you have reverted twice in less than 24hrs at Planned Parenthood. The article is under 1RR sanctions, so you will want to revert yourself to avoid being blocked. Don't get blocked! Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll wait an hour or so for you (Fact) to self-revert. If you don't, I'll report. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just coming over to remind you of the same thing. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for the notices. I forgot about 1RR and really have not run into it in the past. However I was previously aware of it being on that page so I have no good excuse. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already been reverted by another user, so I assume the issue is moot? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice timing on that self-revert - I was on my way to the block button. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Waiting out the 1RR period is not a defense against blocking -- indeed, it indicates an intent to continue edit warring, and can lead to blocks just as easily. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension

About this comment you leave at my talk page:

1. The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months[2].

2. After the last edits at Margaret Sanger article, any discussion about that particular phrase is superflous.

3. At any rate, it seems you are still unable to read and comprehend good enough my warnings: you are not welcomed to come with your hostile comments at my talk page. I have to wonder if you are also unable to keep absolutely away from my user and talk page after this advice. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is mostly incoherent gibberish—you are seeming more and more like EN-3 or EN-2. You seem to have erroneously assumed that the statement was a statement of opinion merely because the author used a first-person pronoun in the same sentence; this is just stupid reasoning on your part. But suffice it to say that even if the author was presenting the claim as opinion, which she clearly was not, the appropriate thing would have been to attribute the statement, not delete it. Furthermore, any editor is allowed to comment on another editor's talk page regarding the substance of a content dispute. And, my comment was perfectly civil; I just didn't go out of my way to be friendly. Given your own tendency to react in a hostile fashion to any and all legitimate criticism, I'd say you don't rate friendly treatment. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am enough able to understand that your comments at my talk page and here, always (dis)qualifying my reading comprehension and referring in rude words against me, it has nothing to do with an attempt to resolve any content dispute, but your comments are solely personal attacks made by you in order to eliminate your opponent by any means. Your last self-confessed and evident rude and hostile comment, now bad rating not only my intelligence and my linguistic skills but also my simpathy and friendliness, it is just another example of your manners. So, still you are not welcomed to stalk and attack me although you are unable to understand my warnings. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Listen, pal, the fact that you've revealed you knew the source said exactly what the material said just means your edit summary ("the source does not say that") was dishonest, rather than merely misguided. And you are entirely unreceptive to criticism, regardless of whether it is presented constructively or not, bristling at every comment while ignoring its substance and launching into accusations of slander and cruel intention. So long as you're lecturing me, examine your own motives. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exposing your own words, for any reader would be enough clear that for you: I am a dishonest stupid, unable to comprehend English and who deserves not friendliness but hostility. So, now I have not any need nor any motive to continue this "chat". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you don't think anything I've said suggests any need to modify your editing habits? Is this all malicious slander, then? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do see things that you've said that say you need to changing your editing habits, Factchecker. In full disclosure, ClaudioSantos asked me to look at this comment, but it's exactly the same sort of personal attack I warned you about before. You could have said everything you said civilly and without actually talking about ClaudioSantos's alleged abilities. You could have said, "Actually, that's exactly what the source says, please check again" and "Just because it uses first person in the line before, doesn't mean the line after is the author's opinion." And if the two of you didn't agree, you should take the issue to WP:RSN or open an RfC. This is a final warning: stop harassing CS, stop making comments about xyr reading abilities, stop describing xyr writing as "incoherent gibberish" (because, I have to say, I have no problem understanding anything CS says in the opening post here--the grammar is imperfect, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to understand). Your comment on CS's talk page was not "perfectly civil." WP:CIVIL isn't a suggestion, nor is WP:NPA--both are policies, the violation of which can lead to a loss of editing privileges. Consider this a final warning--if you can't place nice, you can't play here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If WP:NPA is a defense against having anyone complain when you edit dishonestly, attempt to game the rules when you understand the content and applicable policy (while simply messing things up willy-nilly when you don't), without any investigation as to whether another editor is raising a legitimate concern and without any effort to scrutinize one's own edits—resorting to hostile filibustering and complaints of persecution when the S hits the fan—then the community gets what it deserves. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't criticize CS's edits. I'm saying you can't use that criticism as an excuse to attack CS's English ability, reading comprehension, or overall morality. The dictum is old but sound: "Comment on edits, not editors". That's all you need to do to avoid this problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why I can't comment on his reading comprehension when it's clearly a significant problem with his warlike editing. He has repeatedly removed content with the claim that it is not directly supported by the source, or simply not in the source at all, when in fact the material was clearly and obviously there.

Incidentally, it wasn't until his comments today that I imagined that "not in the source" is sometimes code for some other reason that he'd rather not reveal. And it is quite obviously necessary to comment on an editor's behavior when it is the editor's behavior, and not an individual edit, that is the problem. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If CS's behavior is a problem, open up a WQA, or, if it's really a serious issue that others have also had problems with, an RfCU. Just like with article content, where we have dispute resolution to handle disputes, we have processes in place to handle problematic editors. Do they work all of the time? Of course not. But they at least have a chance of working, while hurling insults on talk pages is guaranteed to get nowhere (other than you ending up blocked yourself). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, on ANI and elsewhere

I suggest you cease engaging ClaudioSantos, as well as cease participating in the discussion regarding him on ANI. Your points have been made; further responses will only result in Moar Dramah and possible sanctions. You are, unfortunately, merely stirring the pot. Please allow the other editors, who have a less problematic history with ClaudioSantos, to decide this. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing myself. Sorry. But I do think that's the best way forward... rather than just letting a ban grow, encourage some advice-seeking that might actually push things in a better direction. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point; I also see ClaudioSantos not actually interested in, or listening to, concerns about this. IMO if he is off the topics he has strong feelings about, we may be able to guide him into better editing habits, better interaction with others. On the topics he has strong feelings about, he's too busy edit warring and defending the rightness of his edits to listen to anything else. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Test

[[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|Centrify]][[User Talk:Factchecker_atyourservice|(talk)]][[Contributions:Factchecker_atyourservice|(contribs)]] (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify(talk)(contribs) 21:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify(talk)(contribs) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Centrify (f/k/a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Yep "out" was missing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you would not mind (although if I had thought you were logged on currently, I would have dropped a note at your talk). And I didn't want to leave any opportunity for things to get derailed by someone deciding to discuss a typo on the Talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Noleander talkback

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Health as human right

For the US and EU:

In the US: The Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

   Employment, with a living wage,
   Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
   Housing,
   Medical care,
   Education, and,
   Social security

In the EU: UN declaration of human rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

See talk page of...

Occupy Wall Street. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I was already attempting to engage you in discussion when I posted to your talk page in an effort to get you to pay attention to the article talk page, I was already aware of, and looking at, the article talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

occupy wall street journal

In reference to this edit: 21:09, 16 October 2011‎ Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)‎ (117,504 bytes) (→Demands and goals: "Occupied Wall Street Journal" seems to have a scant relation to the protests; more like an attempt at self-promotion by the author)

Hi, I noticed you deleted the photo of 'The Occupied Wall Street Journal' and its publisher . Though I can see your point of self promotion by the author there is no mention at all of the newspaper 'The Occupied Wall Street journal I believe it would be important to mention that the newspaper exists and that it is a result of the movement. thanks, 66.108.1.237 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a place for self-promotion by anyone and everyone who would like to be associated with a topic that has a WP article about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street reference

The Epoch Times reference I added to the Occupy Wall Street article has more reliability than the Huffington Post reference in the article, which is basically a blog. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the revised reference, with web link: Stieber, Zack (October 7, 2011.) "Media-Savvy Protesters Join New Era of Unrest." The Epoch Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

HuffPo is partisan, but mainstream. Epoch Times is not mainstream and has faced significant concerns about its credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion occurring for redirects to the Occupy Wall Street article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding the redirecting of several other "Occupy" articles to the article, Occupy Wall Street occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Since you've significantly contributed to the Occupy Wall Street article, this matter may be of interest to you. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice. You have new messages at Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

File:PNHP poster.jpg

For your patience with me

I am sorry I implied that you may have been acting improperly. It is just because Occupy Wall Street is politically contentious and fast-moving. I hope you will forgive me. Please accept this single payer health care poster about the United States National Health Care Act by Physicians for a National Health Program as a token of appreciation for the hard work you have been doing on trying to keep articles neutral. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've doubled down on this accusation, in retrospect, it appears this apology was not especially sincere. Let me also suggest that whenever you're feeling like extending an olive branch to another editor, or want to give someone an "award" for some other reason, it might be preferable not to choose something with a very politically charged message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was sincere at the time, but your refusal to state specific objections in lieu of your vague accusations of undue weight and insistence that I read sources for you and pull out quotes from each changed my mind. Please remove it from your user page. Dualus (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Man, you guys are cute when you bicker.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Been reading your talk page comments...

You have a keen sense of humor! LOL! I like the way it helps defuse situations. (Load a crap! LOL)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that sometimes a good joke can give editors who are at odds with each other all the chance they need to moderate their own behavior instead of arguing about each other. Thus, I have spent several years trying to come up with a good joke. I'll keep you posted! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: FWIW

Is there a specific discussion you think I have not sufficiently participated in? Dualus (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Progressive_stack

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Progressive_stack User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What we have now is a copy of text from the blog quoted with a POV headline. I think the original blog is probably the better reference. There is no serious question that the progressive stack was used and the reasons for its use. That is factual information, the wisdom or effectiveness of its use is opinion, and usually attached to a polarized point of view. One way or another the information is coming from a blog, although possibly one we can use, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Republishing by Fox Nation is just fact laundering. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:99 Percent Declaration is being worked on by your favourite person after 99 Percent Declaration was replaced with a redirect. Not sure talk pages should be used that way, and in most cases, it seems like that type of workspace would be moved to a user subpage. It wouldn't be done in the main talk space. --LauraHale (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I knew...

that when I looked over your talk page I'd find block warnings, maybe a block or two, warnings about interactions with specific editors, references to Moar Dramah, and the like. I must say tho, the appearance of so many of them, including significant actions, warnings and an ANI thread, all within less than the past 90 days, went beyond my expectations. You rock, dude! David in DC (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there an ANI thread about me? I certainly didn't notice.

Have you ever met a long-standing editor who's never been warned over a content dispute?

Have you bothered to take a look at the "specific editor" who I was asked to disengage from? He's got a fan club bigger than the NY Yankees.

Have you bothered to look at the repeated block warning Dualus earned, and did you notice that I charitably refrained from reporting him back to an admin after he edit-warred on at least 5 separate occasions since the warning, on the exact material he was warned about? And did you notice that he resorted to claims of conspiracy against multiple editors within about 24 hours of getting involved in his First Big Content Dispute?

Have you noticed that Dualus has on at least one occasion lied about a previous discussion in an effort to mislead other editors about one of the content disputes we're involved in?

Most importantly, did you come here to do anything other than make snide and pointless comments? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here to make snide comments. That you find them pointless is telling. Happy editing, my brother. David in DC (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem like an intelligent person with reasonable and sincere motivations. It's been an absolute pleasure interacting with you. Best, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Centrify, there was no reason to delete the trademark information on Occupy Wall Street. KSRolph (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug in Welcome to Wikipedia?

Factchecker: I put a comment below yours on User_talk:KSRolph and somehow my name replaced yours in the signature to {{Welcome-to-Wikipedia|Factchecker_atyourservice}} I tried a number of fixes, but the change remained. Is there a bug? Should we report it somewhere?--Nowa (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If they are mentioned in the source and are used as a source...

They can be mentioned in the article. This isn't a stretch by any means.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinychat?

Do you think it might be helpful to try to communicate via Tinychat? Please let me know on my talk page. Dualus (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to communicate with you via any means that isn't fully logged and recorded by WP servers, so let's stick to talk pages. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

He left the same invitation on my talk page. I don't like "behind closed doors" methods either. Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

International human rights instruments

FYI,

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_edit-warring

 Chzz  ►  21:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. You've made the "difficult block". Now why the hell didn't you also make the "easy block"? Just trying to be contrarian? FYI, if I hadn't given User:Dualus about 20 second chances to come around to something resembling the expected collaborative approach, and had instead simply documented his edit-warring and reported him, there would have been no war in the first place. I also abstained from reverting him for valid reasons on dozens of occasions and gave the opportunity for him to self-revert, attempt to reach discussion, understand policy—hell, anything other than the OR-soapbox he's been standing on for the past several weeks. I guess exhibiting all that patience was a mistake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

*grin* Oh, believe me, I feel your pain. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not always so good at reading between the lines. Are you saying that I've exhausted your patience in the same way (or to the same extent) that Dualus exhausted mine? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stalker) My stab in the dark is that Sarek was agreeing that "WikiJustice" can be capricious and unfair. Another reason to be indifferent, I suppose. But FWIW, I'm sympathetic to the POV you stated. Take this for example. How to remove the soapbox this user stands on? Hmmmm... or should I be indifferent and not even ask that question, knowing that eventually it will be sorted out? Jesanj (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus got blocked 21 minutes after Factchecker, and for the same time period. Dualus should have been given a longer timeout than Factchkr, IMO. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not you at all. I've been blocked twice for edit warring with someone who finally got a three-month block for disruptive editing. (I was thinking of something else when I posted, but that gets the point across better.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How long are you blocked? We need you! Gandydancer (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If I were still blocked, I wouldn't be posting here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay invitation

When you return (please return!) I am inviting you to help contribute to a new essay article, WP:PAROOAH Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This essay is about no synthesis. Please feel free to add contributions, edit the article for errors and discuss the (edit: changed to not sound like I mean the essay article as policy) Wikipedia policies and guidelines for Original Research, on the talk page and how we can improve my essay! You may familiarize yourself with essays here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please leave me alone

Please no not contact me on my talk page or ask others to do so. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please leave me alone as well

Inflammatory? The discussion page of an article is the appropriate place to voice criticism of the article and its editors' treatment of the subject. In the case of the OWS entry it is clearly the work of biased supporters and I think anyone with a brain in their head, or who has seen or had to deal with the OWS encampment itself, will agree that "organizational structure" is at best a laughable summation of the chaos that is OWS's attempt at structure. While you may not agree with my criticism, nor my style of presentation, it is mine to give, how I wish. I did not edit the article itself only its discussion. I'll thank you to refrain from interfering with my future wikipedia contributions. In return, I promise to extend you the same courtesy. Thank you. Admiral Bimbo (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as you would know if you had bothered to read the talk page policy page I linked, it is not your prerogative to use a talk page to share your thoughts ridiculing the article topic and the editors who have worked on the article. Don't do it again. You may also wish to read the meta page urging users not to act like a dick. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. I have no interest in reading a "meta page" that urges one to not "act like a dick," if doing so is suggested by someone who is clearly ACTING LIKE A DICK. Blatant hypocrisy isn't going to win you points with me, pal. Same goes for the a$$hole cop who runs three red lights, then pulls over the little old lady for a "rolling stop." Get a grip. There's no benefit in taking yourself too seriously, especially if that pertains to your "power status" as a contributing editor to an open source, all access online encyclopedia. Eyes on the ball, man. Let's just chill out here.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Spare me the nonsensical and insulting rhetoric. Play by the rules and you'll never hear from me again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS question about facebook?

Out of curiosity, do you follow the various OWS pages on facebook? I had a question I wanted to ask about it. 완젬스 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not on facebook and have no desire to start now . . . sorry :-\ Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sighs, well you got me today (on the talk page of OWS) and it really hurt. No doubt, I'm pro-OWS, but I only represent the "privileged college grads" and I do not represent the violent wing of OWS. I'm at a crossroads of where I stand... Are there two factions within OWS? (a legitimate movement to which I belong, and a violent fringe full of rapists and police car soiling whack-jobs) I have been through this "disillusionment" before with Barack Obama. I was an organizer, worked at one of his Orlando call centers, and I helped ferry unmotorized voters from black neighborhoods to the polls, as well as single-handedly registering 150 new Obama voters, who have never voted for the first time in their life. I believe Obama's ideas have succeeded (which is why we voted for him) but his policies have given me doubts. I still think he deserves more time to fix America, but I'm an emotional person which is why I fall so easily into liberal/progressive causes such as OWS.

Here is my point, you say (indirectly) that I should recuse myself from the OWS article altogether because of my strong progessive/liberal bias, but I want to issue the same challenge I gave to Alrez. Look at my 81 edits to the OWS article, and tell me a single one where my love of Wikipedia didn't trump my love of liberal/progressive tactics and policies. Wikipedia is serious business to me, and I want to help Wikipedia and help OWS. If there's any doubt, I always err on the side of Wikipedia because I've been editing for years, and my loyalty always resides with my home here at Wikipedia. It's just that facebook has so many people like Dualus who spin propaganda crap on Lawrence Lessig and the rogue, breakaway faction of the 99% declaration activists. If any advice were to be rendered, it would be to unplug myself from facebook and stick to forming my opinions of OWS from WP:Reliable Sources but the way you said it, was very heavy-handed & non-reflective of the type of editor I pride myself in being. I hope you can think of an article you put in as much blood, sweat, and tears as I have, and then maybe you'll rethink the type of editor I am. 완젬스 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh.. I only suggested you keep some thoughts to yourself. I don't think that even comes close to asking you to "recuse" yourself "altogether".. as I said pretty much everybody has a POV, but we all need the ability to take a step back from our POV at any time, and at times each of us may need to be reminded of that need by others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Miss you, man

Just saying hi. (and a wink, my brother, and a wink). Admiral Bimbo (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS and Google

hi thanks for pointing out the error i made. i got confused about something i had heard and didnt find the right source for it - letting me know why you removed it is appreciated and people like you make this a better place! Bouket (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS Revert

I DID discuss in talk. I also added sources, including an exact quote from the Rachel Maddow Show and independent sources discussing smashed computers. I even went so far as to correct the exact wording for correctness. I am being true and accurate. Your failure to read both shows YOUR issue with content, not mine. I revert the whole package again as your vandalism. You are the one who needs to stop warring. Trackinfo (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Woops; my bad for missing that you did finally decide to discuss it. None of what you said, though, justifies the text having been in there in the first place. Taking a source that points out cops took the camp apart with sawzalls is not even remotely the same neighborhood as "police making a deliberate attempt to damage items", which is very POV-pushy and, as you admit, not supported by the source. Also not sure what to make of your accusations about using multiple names or "skirting the intent of WP:SOCK". I post under one name and clearly indicate the name I used to post under. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1RRPPPDODC

You asked that users who notice you committing more than one content reversion at a single page in a single day report you to an admin. I'm not going to do that, but - 22:10, 30 November 2011‎, 14:48, 1 December 2011‎. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

03:08, 8 December 2011‎, 13:14, 7 December 2011‎. Hipocrite (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's worthy of asking me to be blocked, go right ahead. That's the point of putting that on my userpage, albeit in the hopes that editors would only indulge if they felt concern over an edit-war brewing. (Note also that I only invite users to report me, whereas I request that an admin receiving a report go ahead and block me.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS criticism section dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute (yes I know you are only slightly involved but hope you will stop by). Cheers! B^e——C_ritical 06:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

99% declaration AFD

Feel free to weigh in on the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination).--Amadscientist (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:List of policies#Why is there no SEARCH feature covering pages listed here?

The phrase you're looking for is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". It's part of WP:V and has a specific link using WP:REDFLAG.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security

I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Hello User:Factchecker atyourservice. Some time ago I made a suggestion for this project.[3] A formal proposal has been made at the project council proposal page. If you are interested you may add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I mention you in passing here, do please come along and have a say. Penyulap _talk 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Occupy Wall Street

An article that you have been involved in editing, Occupy Wall Street , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

N.B. OWS

That seems like a fair (if perhaps somewhat extreme) measure. A lot of, how to put it, DIY-type sites are probably not up to date on their security credentials, and I think it's really unlikely that the site is a scam or something. I have no stake in the site, and had never seen it until it was posted there. My only objection was that this was a dialogue between two other editors, a query and a response, that could eventually go to help the article, and as such it shouldn't be removed (as nothing short of vandalism, abuse, spam, and wide digressions should be removed from talk pages, IMO). I hope the character limit allowed to edit summaries didn't make my edit summary sound gruff or anything. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Factchecker atyourservice: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street Revert Issue

Before I report you for edit warring, I recommend that you read the summaries I've provided for my edits. The image of the ballerina and the bull is a copyrighted image that came from Adbusters.org, and is by no means justified by fair use to be use on Wikipedia. Also, the image that I put up there is not mine I've found it on Wikimedia and looked upon its content and did some research, it's an original. Based off what I've read on the Occupy Pages and the verificable information on the Occupy Wall Street page, this picture is well suited in a positive way. I'd recommend that you don't get caught up in the revert because you're reverting other contributor's work, too. If you have a change, all you have to do is just edit a piece of information like I did. All I did is provide templates because the article is indeed violating some crucial Wikipedia standards and other testify to this in the talk page, and the in the edit history summaries. I've provided information with sources to bring forth clarity in the infobox alone, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I added. Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Report away. I stand by my edits and won't be intimidated. Everything I've seen indicates you are editing in a highly disruptive fashion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello Factchecker! Sorry about any confusion that might have arisen at MedCab a few hours ago. The case that you filed is now located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/04 June 2012/Occupy Wall Street. You were confusing the bot because you left the article name off the end of the mediation request page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at OWS

Hi there, I was surprised to find "I should not be surprised at basic ignorance of policy by people editing this page" on the talk page at OWS - in reference to me. Personal attacks are stated at the top of each talk page as a violation of Wikipedia policies. My mistake was an honest one; an assumption of good faith is another policy here that you may not be aware of. In general: be nice. Treat others as you want to be treated.

Thanks for pointing out my error, by the way.petrarchan47^Tc 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, but as I said, it was a mistake. Completely. Those must be taken into consideration, ie, "assume good faith". Thanks again. petrarchan47^Tc 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OWS

Hi there. It seems that MadSci, who said he'd do some work on the article, is taking a break. I like your ideas for improving/bringing the article up to date. Would you be interested in presenting something? Or even a bold edit? Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit weary and bruised from the discussions of late. Is there anything specific you would recommend? I'd rather start off with something that at least one other person agrees with ;)

Also, it might be better to steer clear of issues on which Mad has registered strong disagreement. Otherwise we'll just have to revisit the discussion when he returns, and he probably wouldn't be thrilled with contentious disputes being "resolved" as soon as he walks away for a minute. (I've certainly been on the receiving end of that kind of thing.)

In any event, thanks for the note :) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly thought that your intention was good and sound as you expressed it in your opening statement about what updates you felt would be good for the article and I would support those additions. As for MadSci, I'm sure that he understands that nothing is being done behind his back. But I sure do understand why you would hesitate - it is disheartening to put a lot of work into something only to find that it results in endless bickering. Gandydancer (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys. Please feel free to continue to discuss all relevent issues and work on consensus and improve the article as you feel fit. I appreciate thinking of me but, I have been putting off finishing several real life projects (a number of landscape paintings I began many years ago) and am currently spending the majority of my hours on these for now...or untill all 6 are finsihed. I check in now and then and have been helping out a bit with Project editor retention and a few other articles I adopted years ago. Pretty obscure history articles on long destroyed Roman monuments. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a little more work on the article tonight. I think the anarchy subject seems covered well enough for now, as I am finding more that was overlooked in origins which seems more important for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mad. Thanks for your work. I don't really have a lot of energy right now for the OWS article, but I've been keeping tabs on it and currently have no concerns. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors

User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.