User talk:Ifersen

Welcome!

Hello, Ifersen, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yworo (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michel Chossudovsky. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/pasting

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Michel Chossudovsky article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you cannot copy sentences but this is his work experience, it is not copied from the website actually, if you look belowIfersen (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC), it is not the same, but may appear simalar. If, for example, you listed the places you have worked on your own wiki page, how could you expect the wording to change significantly, other than the order of places you have worked?[reply]

"Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism"(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia and Latin America, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages." .

Sourcing

Also, please note that we typically do not source claims from the subject's website, only neutral information like birthdate, etc. Most material must be sourced to independent reliable third-party sources, not to the subject. Yworo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your notes. I am trying to learn my way around here.Ifersen (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) I am confused because it seems most of the reference materials are links to his websites. Are the other reference irrelevant too then? There are also some references about Jew-Haters that have nothing to do with him at all. What is going on here? If wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, this article is not a good example of what wikipedia strives for. Thanks for your help.Ifersen (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chossudivsky

you obviously love this bloke but please explain why you so object to the karadjis material - is there a specific wording, based on p.207 you would not edit war over - or is any material that draws in any way from p.207 of karadjis book unacceptable to you? in which case - isn't that you censoring the article for your own inscrutable, reasons? Sayerslle (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle, Control + F again is your friend. It is not there. Please copy whole paragraph where he says this on my talk page (you will not because you are lying). There is already some valid criticism from Karadjis on the page, why is that not good enough for you? BTW, I don't "love this bloke" anymore than you can't stand him. I am just sick of seeing the same handful of people harm the spirit of Wikipedia. Isn't it enough for you that half of the page on Chossudovsky is criticism's from 3 people who are less distinguished than Chossudovsky himself?

look at p.207 - it says ' nato is blah blah ' was the heading of an article by the noted left apologist for the regime etc etc - something like that- so he is referred to as an apologist etc - you keep saying 'you are a liar.it is not there' but it is there - he is referred to as an apologist - if you just keep repeating 'it is not there' - its like you are just 'troll'ing I believe its called. thats how I see it. Sayerslle (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting that there is nothing on page 207 that resembles what is in quotation marks on the criticism page. You do know that quotations mean that whatever is in the quotes are directly taken from the book, don't you? So now you see the problem? You are going to actually have to work and write something new instead of reverting an old false quotation inserted by BobRaynor.Ifersen (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh gawd - the - words in quotation marks - are -in the -sodding -book - on page 207 - I have tried to copy/paste but it doesn't work -why don't you copy page 207 to your talk page and look at it - why not do that? copy the bit from p.207 where this man is mentioned. control and f might as well be your friend if you know how to copy paste p.207 to your talk page - this man is referred to as an apologist. bob raynor didn't invent that bit at the bottom of p.207 - will you do that? copy p.207 to this talk page and then point out what has been invented and lied about and fraudulently expressed. Sayerslle (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Michel Chossudovsky shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

It seems in this edit war, I am the only one who actually has backed up my case on the talk page. Please check talk page and then give this message to the ones who are doing the reverts of my reverts WIHOUT discussing.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. bobrayner (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is RICH coming from Bob Raynor! King of making stuff up on this page. I am only reverting made up quotes which I actually discussed on talk page. Sayerselle did not back up why he reverted my edits, but this would not be a problem with you, would it?Ifersen (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Ifersen, I saw you wrote a section "Bobraynor is at it again" on Talk:Michel_Chossudovsky. FYI, I see Bobraynor being at it on United States Central Command; he reverted an edit that added info sourced from the Centre for Global research as "unreliable source". Notably, 90% of the USCCOM page is unsourced, but that didnt bother him. When I re-instituted the edit (which wasnt mine), and mildly warned him with a censorship level 1 template for having removed sourced info, he reverted me, accused me to "confuse" reliable from unreliable and complained that I used a template for him, an experienced editor. I consider this disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]