User talk:Soxwon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

9/11 conspiracy theories article subheading

You just reverted my change of "Accepted account" to "9/11 Commission account" in this article. Please discuss this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Accepted_account_vs._9.2F11_Commission_account_subheading Thanks, Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

3rr

The three-revert rule ("3RR") states:

"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 it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the 3RR rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." One more revert and you are in violation of the 3rr rule and will be reported as such DocOfSoc (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been politely asked to discuss on talk page before reverting. Please do so. BTW, you are now in violation of 3rr rule. YOu are also engaging in edit warring. Another violation. How about if we both step back until later today. Cooler heads will usually prevail, and the other editors have time for their input. TY for your cooperation. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you both for noticing this morning's edit war and taking steps to end it collegially. If you think it would help, please do not hesitate to request page protection at my talkpage or Requests for page protection. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yo

No apology necessary, mate. I often see editors who may personally not like particular sources to voice objections to material in the terms of that personal objection, even when there is also a valid policy concern for exclusion of material as well. I try to put aside what I personally think of a source, and then evaluate sources against the criteria set forth in policy and respect the community consensus (especially when it's well litigated). In the end, we both agree that there is no demonstrated weight to merit inclusion; just make sure to use policy and consensus as the reasoning. Pardon if this sounded like a sanctimonious lecture; it's offered as friendly advice.  :) Happy new year! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"fight the power"

Fight what power? --67.250.89.3 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't me. It might have been someone else living in my house, though. --67.250.89.3 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I got an account. --Edward Rankin (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Random comment in passing

If I were to build a playlist for my MP3 music player based solely off the music you have listed on your user page, I would be quite satisfied indeed. Happy New Year :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD of Ernie the Giant Chicken

Hi,

I removed the PROD tag you placed on Ernie the Giant Chicken, as a previous version of that article had an AFD discussion, which makes the article ineligible for deletion by PROD. If you think that the article does not address the concerns of the previous AFD and is substantially the same as the one deleted after the AFD, you can nominate it for speedy deletion under criterion G4. If you think the article may be substantially different than the one deleted in that discussion, but still think it should be deleted, then you would need to start a new AFD discussion about it. Calathan (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are missing steps in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie the Giant Chicken, Please see Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion for instructions. CTJF83 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to give him time to edit. It takes a few minutes to go through all the steps to create an AFD (if you are doing it manually). Calathan (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ya, I haven't done that in a while...Soxwon, if you install WP:TW, it makes AfD and a lot of other stuff a lot easier. :) CTJF83 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cool, 'tis no problem. CTJF83 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Soxwon, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Soxwon. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck article

You seem to be trying to start a fight with me. I have not spoken to you and I have not held anything against you, so please cut the condescending remarks you are making to me.AerobicFox (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, you are the one who is fighting for the sake of fighting. Each time we give you a valid source, a valid argument, etc you strike back with an oblique interpretation or a semantic argument. BlennGeck (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps, you are responding 10 days late to something completely unrelated...AerobicFox (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Beckapalooza

Hi Soxwon. Thank you for your invitation, however I think I'm going to abstain for the moment. While I agree with you and the new fellow, in that criticism and coverage is widespread and germane, I simply don't believe that all the participants are there in good faith (and therefore, arguing with them will not result in meaningful progress). I've been dealing with those sorts for years, and I've kindof given up the ghost on this article. There are simply too many True Believes -- some in plain sight, some not -- to have substantive policy discussions about the issues at hand. I'm sorry to let you down, as I feel this is an opportunity for us to work together for a change, but I've pretty much given up on that article (and several others). If things settle down into a little more structured forum I'll surely jump in, but it's devolved so much that it's hard to find an entry point and the opposition seems hell bent to ignore or invent policies to suit them. I guess I've lost the will to argue with people who ignore policy or apply it in bad faith. Just wanted to explain, so it doesn't look like I'm ignoring you. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be petty to bring up here, but said "new fellow" has been around the Glenn Beck article for about a year as an IP, looking up people's edit histories and calling them partisan and editing people's posts.AerobicFox (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy fuck. LynnCityofsin was your previous account, not just someone whose post you were editing.AerobicFox (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blaxthos, is there anything that can be done about this. It really seems like true believers have the discussion page stacked. I have to believe that is some kind of violation of wiki guidelines. I find myself going gray because as soon as I satisfy an editor's criticism or concern he/she mystifies me with a complete misreading of the source material or semantic attempts to invert the source material's meaning. I would like to contribute to the article. And I don't have anything against Beck personally (I actually have a great deal of admiration for what he has done on Fox). But it makes no sense to exclude major controversies from a person's bio page, when the subject traffics in controversy. BlennGeck (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. BlennGeck (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

McGlockin

Not to pour gas on the fire, but I just deleted an "article" that amounted to some kind of vandal report entitled Soxwon. User warned, I'll keep an eye on them. Acroterion _(talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On a closer review of their contributions, it looked like a better idea to call a time-out. They can read policy while blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Words

I'm leaving editing political articles for now since I seem to get stir up arguments in them. I actually do think well of you, and I am sorry for making myself difficult to work with. I hope you can accept my apology for starting unnecessary arguments.AerobicFox (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yankees pics

Sure, go ahead and scan some of them, and I'll give it a shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to do anything with this yet? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. No rush. P.S. Spring cannot come soon enough. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

edit warring at Talk:September 11 attacks

Template:September 11 arbcom Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it you to decide whether to report him or take him to AN/I or whatever...

I just do the floors, see? HalfShadow 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have made him blush. Could this be love? HalfShadow 04:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No... It's "What is love, baby don't hurt me..."

Get yer memes right. HalfShadow 04:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits in US state terrorism

Hi, I see that you recently reverted my edits. I appreciate your referring to them as "good faith" edits because that's what they are. I of course understand that this is a very tricky subject, but as you can probably see from the talk page, I'm very eager to find a solution to this other than just leaving the intro as is. I'm ok with leaving it reverted, but I'd like to add something in its place. Do you have any suggestions as to how to proceed? Do you agree with my assessment that, without adding anything, the intro is reasonably disingenuous? If so, you see the issue -- there must be something else in the intro to qualify the fact that these aren't just "allegations" and "accusations" lacking hard evidence (that, in fact, evidence has been presented in international court and at the UN by nations such as Nicaragua/Cuba, and routinely in publications by academics as well). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Chad Ochocinco

Did he legally have his name changed back or did he just say he would change it back? If a reliable source says he legally filed the paperwork to change his name back, then the whole article's name should be changed. Until then, all the media sources I've seen have his last name as Ochocinco. Kansan (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed that you had weighed in on the discussion so I pinged you to let you know about the newest vote. Participation is purely voluntary, and if I contacted you by mistake I apologise. — GabeMc (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm does this help you any with the 911 discussion? am sure i have seen a doc from the bbc covering it but am still looking sorry am new here and dont understand how to edit correctly.

TimeKilla (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

List of footballers killed during World War II

I have reverted your move to this page as it was a) undiscussed and b) spelt incorrectly. Please take more care in future, and have a look at WP:RM if you still wish to move the page. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

blocked

I'm sorry that it has come to this but you really left no choice since you were explicitly warned the last time not to edit war about this again. It's a brief block, just 24 hours, for violating the terms of the Sept. 11 attacks arbitration case, of which you are already aware. As I recall you narrowly escaped being blocked before by declaring that you would not edit war in this area in the future, so fresh warnings for this latest bout were not issued. This is an arbitration enforcement block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption

You are invited for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption- . Shlok _{talk .} 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falkland Islands

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falkland Islands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of International Relations

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of International Relations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Requests for comment

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)