| Revision as of 23:03, 4 February 2015 editTheobald Tiger (talk | contribs)1,164 edits →February 2015← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:47, 5 February 2015 edit undoKeegan (talk | contribs)Administrators15,573 edits →February 2015: NPANext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| :I object to this block: how could one possibly reveal a COI as every attempt to put it in words is considered an harassment of other users? Catar66 was absolutely right, and not only the harassment but also the encyclopedic damage is persistently caused by the user with the COI. ] (]) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | :I object to this block: how could one possibly reveal a COI as every attempt to put it in words is considered an harassment of other users? Catar66 was absolutely right, and not only the harassment but also the encyclopedic damage is persistently caused by the user with the COI. ] (]) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Now I have read the guidelines that govern this subject, I understand that the outing was not allowed. This means that an editor with a COI cannot be unmasked, as long as such an editor consistently lies about his COI, or skilfully evades the question. ] (]) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ::Now I have read the guidelines that govern this subject, I understand that the outing was not allowed. This means that an editor with a COI cannot be unmasked, as long as such an editor consistently lies about his COI, or skilfully evades the question. ] (]) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::I understand where you're coming from ], however on Misplaced Pages we ]. We do not expose personal information to gain a leg in a content debate, period. ] (]) 08:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:47, 5 February 2015
December 2014
Hello, Cathar66, welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Misplaced Pages. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Murry1975 I only have one operational account on Misplaced Pages. I used to be known as Cathar11 but as I've forgotten the password i cant access it anymore. I act alone. If you need to know more talk anytime Cathar66 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
3RR Violation?
Just wanted to inform you that I did not make a 3RR violation and your unexplained revert was not necessary.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies there were so many reversions I lost track of who did what. CATO Opinion pieces are not a reliable source. And yes I read the totally unscientific basis for the allegations which were a confabulation of half truths, lies and selective statistics. The original article on the CATO website.Cathar66 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was originally in an education magazine but the content that was in the article is in the form of a commentary. I'm not sure if we can judge article as such though from reliable sources, that is why I opened up a discussion that I will inform only two other about that are fairly neutral. Please feel free to leave your comment.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I won't invite anyone since I'll probably get accused for canvassing.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- ;)Cathar66 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
edit conflict
Hi. Your edit to Human Resources (Non-Profit) caused an edit conflict. You'll note that I put two banners at the top of the article indicating that I'm in the middle of a big rewrite. Your editing interrupts my progress. Please take note next time if {{under construction}} or the like is present. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies Chris Troutman (talk I noticed the article was listed for deletion and just glanced at the heading before reading the article and then edited a faulty ref. I added it to my watchlist as I thought it was worth saving. No harm taken or intended.Cathar66 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
A number of things
1. Please don't mark wholesale revisions of text as "minor". 2. You have the onus reversed - there is no consensus to include that material. Please read WP:ONUS, which documents an English Misplaced Pages policy. Specifically the line that reads "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." 3. If you want to participate in the discussion on consensus building, please do so on the talk page. You have not done so to date. If you delete the material again without discussion, I will report this behavior. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Don't Wiki lawyer me User:Brad Dyer. There are already two other editors who want to keep this section in. you are the person going against the consensus for inclusion. Cathar66 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- there are 3 editors pushing for inclusion, but not supporting their POV with policy-based arguments. I have given you the policy based argument for exclusion, and am supported in this by another user. You do not have consensus for including it. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Your Carmel reverts
How do the quotes enhance your knowledge about Carmel? This revert is totally unjustified. The quote is focused on the nearby village, not on Carmel. Please explain me how this is related! in addition WP:NPS requires quotes to be part of relevant conversation. Since the article doesn't speak about difference between life style of settlers and Palestinians, please explain how they are relevant. Ashtul (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Landmark Worldwide
Hello! In this edit you removed content from the Landmark Worldwide article, with an edit summary indicating that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not reliable sources. What do you base that understanding on? Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Tgeairn A tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not WP:RS. The Irish Daily Mail is not used as RS in Wiki in Ireland.Cathar66 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was not aware that Irish Daily Mail was considered tabloid journalism. Isn't Mayfair pretty much like Playboy magazine? We use Playboy as a source here on en. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Tgeairn Are you an employee or a volunteer at Landmark?Cathar66 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- See my response in this section. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Tgeairn You didn't answer it there either.Cathar66 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- See my response in this section. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Tgeairn Are you an employee or a volunteer at Landmark?Cathar66 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was not aware that Irish Daily Mail was considered tabloid journalism. Isn't Mayfair pretty much like Playboy magazine? We use Playboy as a source here on en. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.- @ Tgeairn You're becoming irritating . Stop WP:Wikilawyering.
Michael Langone
Hello. With this edit, you restored content and a reference. Your edit summary indicated that the content is sourced to the Huffington Post. Please review the source again. While the link points to the Huffington Post, the content at the linked page is a self-provided bio (blog author bio). Even though the site is Huffington, the source is still self-provided (and therefore not reliable). I request that you self-revert. Thanks for your attention, Tgeairn (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict revert
I only just now noticed you reverted all of my edits in the article that I made two weeks ago by saying I conducted an unexplained removal of sources. You were mistaken, I did not remove any sources. If you would carefully check you would see I replaced the older info and sources (some of them dating back to early September) with more UP-TO-DATE info and NEWER sources (published in late December). I hope that clears it up. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies EkoGraf the lack of an edit summary caused this misunderstanding.Cathar66 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Notice
I have suppressed some of your recent edits for revealing non-public, personal identifying information. Google is not wonderful on-wiki, do not do this again or you may be temporarily blocked to prevent further disruption. Keegan (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- KeeganApologies. I accept what you say and realise that I went too far. I will not do it again.Cathar66 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have now read the section and understand its contents and would have been more circumspect if I had been aware of it beforehandCathar66 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Keegan (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have now read the section and understand its contents and would have been more circumspect if I had been aware of it beforehandCathar66 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
February 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. →AzaToth 16:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I object to this block: how could one possibly reveal a COI as every attempt to put it in words is considered an harassment of other users? Catar66 was absolutely right, and not only the harassment but also the encyclopedic damage is persistently caused by the user with the COI. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now I have read the guidelines that govern this subject, I understand that the outing was not allowed. This means that an editor with a COI cannot be unmasked, as long as such an editor consistently lies about his COI, or skilfully evades the question. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from Theobald Tiger, however on Misplaced Pages we comment on the content, not the contributor. We do not expose personal information to gain a leg in a content debate, period. Keegan (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now I have read the guidelines that govern this subject, I understand that the outing was not allowed. This means that an editor with a COI cannot be unmasked, as long as such an editor consistently lies about his COI, or skilfully evades the question. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)