Misplaced Pages

User talk:Abbarocks: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:17, 1 March 2009 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits →March 2009← Previous edit Revision as of 03:23, 1 March 2009 edit undoAbbarocks (talk | contribs)410 edits →March 2009Next edit →
Line 49: Line 49:
Again, puts into the main text unsourced material that you seem to have made up. That's not what we do at Misplaced Pages. If you're going to claim "Some historians" think something, then you cite to the historians who think that. You don't just assert it. In addition, multiple reversions with discussing on the talk-page is what we call ], and is a bad breach of Misplaced Pages etiquette. (Making more than ] in 24 hours to the same page is grounds for being blocked; you've made two.) Simply asserting your original research isn't original research, as you did in your edit summary, is also bad form. An edit summary needs to reasonably describe what or why you're doing it, and adding unsourced information and saying "Not OR" is generally viewed as a bad-faith edit. Please take a look at the 24 January comment above, and follow the links. Most of your edits have been counterproductive. ] (]) 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Again, puts into the main text unsourced material that you seem to have made up. That's not what we do at Misplaced Pages. If you're going to claim "Some historians" think something, then you cite to the historians who think that. You don't just assert it. In addition, multiple reversions with discussing on the talk-page is what we call ], and is a bad breach of Misplaced Pages etiquette. (Making more than ] in 24 hours to the same page is grounds for being blocked; you've made two.) Simply asserting your original research isn't original research, as you did in your edit summary, is also bad form. An edit summary needs to reasonably describe what or why you're doing it, and adding unsourced information and saying "Not OR" is generally viewed as a bad-faith edit. Please take a look at the 24 January comment above, and follow the links. Most of your edits have been counterproductive. ] (]) 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)



== March 2009 ==
] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits. <br> The next time you violate Misplaced Pages's ] by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article{{#if:Skull and Bones|, as you did to ]}}, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-nor4 --> ''Revert immediately. You admitted on the talk page that it was original research. The sources don't support your claim. Yet you insist on edit-warring against multiple editors who have corrected you, and you removed tags to boot after being warned about that. This has gone beyond good-faith mistakes, and is now just disruptive editing. (Separately, thank you for finding a citation for the Pancho Villa grave theft, but in the future, please follow ] for footnotes so other editors don't have to clean up after you.)'' ] (]) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
{{talkback|ikip}} {{talkback|ikip}}


Revision as of 03:23, 1 March 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Abbarocks, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Request for Comment?

I have decide it is not fair to you as a new user, to throw you into this. RfCs are much too disruptive and contentious. See my talk page for an explantion of what a RfC is, and a good example. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would instead suggest WP:3o for you and collect, if you would like help setting it up, I would be happy to help you. Ikip (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
ok, I'll also just think about it for awhile. I don't want to get into any kind of altercations either, and it's hard to predict what might annoy or upset somebody else. Abbarocks (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Abbarocks, if there is anything i can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask. I notice that you have email disabled. Ikip (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts would be helpful

An editor has asked me to look into a slow edit war between them and you at Union Banking Corporation. Is there any reason you don't wish to use the article talk page and talk about your edits? There is also a question as to whether this is someone's alternate account. Your thoughts would be helpful to me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Skull and Bones, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. This is a persistent problem with your edits on multiple pages. Please review the policy and self-revert the inappropriate addition to the page. THF (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion made in a friendly manner and I will read the info and work on the issue. Thanks. Abbarocks (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags

The answer to a {{fact}} tag on a sentence with unsourced information is not to remove the tag but to provide a cite. Please undo your edit or add a cite. The rest of the world cannot read your mind and know that you meant some footnote earlier or later in the article if you don't add the footnote. If you don't know how to add a cite, see WP:CITE. THF (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Collect already undid your edit, but feel free to add a cite anyway, since you seem to know where this mysterious claim is sourced. But see generally Misplaced Pages:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. THF (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Abbarocks (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
When I asked for a cite, I meant a cite for the proposition made by the sentence, not just a random news article mildly related to it. These are not appropriate cites. Neither of these news articles mention "internet conspiracies" or claim that Skull & Bones was responsible for the Nazi actions. Again, see my caution above about Misplaced Pages's No original research policy, which includes impermissible synthesis. You can't manufacture controversial conclusions not discussed by the underlying articles, no matter how logical they seem to you. THF (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Also, please do read WP:CITE like I asked, in particular Misplaced Pages:CITE#Footnote_system, because you formatted the cites wrong, and I had to fix it--which is especially annoying when the cites were bogus.) THF (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cite for al-Qaeda and 9/11, copied from Responsibility for the September 11 attacks:

Wright, Lawrence (2006). The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Alfred P. Knopf. pp. 362–367.

You need something of that quality to publish your Skull & Bones theory. THF (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re : your first point.The Guardian site says "There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection". Maybe this process is too insider oriented for me to take part in. I am just a casual contributor and have no idea what you guys are talking about half the time and whenever I try to accomodate one objection to an edit it seems there are several more in waiting. It's likely even more frustrating for those of you who have intimite knowledge of all the rules and regs. to deal with me than it is for me to deal with you. I'll just do my best til I have more time to learn all of the rules and interpretations thereof and in the meantime I'm sure 1 or more of the rule experts will correct any mistakes I make. I think that's the way it likely is supposed to work. Abbarocks (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Bush/Nazi connection" is not the "Skull & Bones connection." THF (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it is the folks who insist on throwing out the "conspiracy theory" strawman when it is clearly not appropriate who are interfering with consensus building. Abbarocks (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More original research

Again, this edit puts into the main text unsourced material that you seem to have made up. That's not what we do at Misplaced Pages. If you're going to claim "Some historians" think something, then you cite to the historians who think that. You don't just assert it. In addition, multiple reversions with discussing on the talk-page is what we call edit-warring, and is a bad breach of Misplaced Pages etiquette. (Making more than 3 reversions in 24 hours to the same page is grounds for being blocked; you've made two.) Simply asserting your original research isn't original research, as you did in your edit summary, is also bad form. An edit summary needs to reasonably describe what or why you're doing it, and adding unsourced information and saying "Not OR" is generally viewed as a bad-faith edit. Please take a look at the 24 January comment above, and follow the links. Most of your edits have been counterproductive. THF (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


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

Deleting comments

Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages:

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.

Ikip (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)