User talk:Bobinisrael
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
September 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Christopher Stevens (diplomat). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 220 of Borg 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit Summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. - 220 of Borg 11:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk page on attacks in Libya
Kindly read Talk:2012_U.S._diplomatic_missions_attacks#Leftist_absurdity_continues_with_false_blame_of_the_terrorist_attacks_on_an_obscure_film. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
2012 US diplomatic missions attacks
Hi Bob,
You've posted a number of what I think can only be described as rants (e.g. [1]) These posts are unproductive and not within the spirit of wikipedia. We don't speculate on what we think happened, we cite sources. The language in the article 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks does a reasonable job of reflecting what the news media is saying. You may think that you know better than, say The New York Times, but it's not Wikipedia's job to correct what the media is saying. Our job is to find reliable sources and cite and summarize them. Your comments, such as "We might as well refer to these murderers as "freedom fighters" and just indulge the political sensibilities of 90% of the Wikipedia "editor" community" are also not within the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Now, if you have specific ideas for improving these articles, such as new sources or information that you'd like to bring in, than by all means use the talk page to do so, but if you just want to rant there are plenty of other websites on the Internet for that purpose. GabrielF (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, you cannot directly address any of the valid points I raised, and instead wish to silence dissenting views countering the dishonest and dominant leftist narrative of these events. You deride my valid points as "rants" in order to absolve yourself of having to say anything of substance. It's all perfectly understood and completely expected. Bobinisrael (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, the meaning of those words have nothing in common with GabrielF's words. -- Jibal (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Propose some edits
Bob, I think you're basically right about what happened. People have been duped by the film trailers. The best way to get it fixed is to propose some specific edits on the article talk page, linking to reputable sources. Yelling at people and telling them that they're stupid is just going to discourage them and waste everyone's time because we're all volunteers. If you're not participating in trying to make the article better, you're just giving yourself and your perspective a bad rep. —Cupco 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia disgraced itself a very long time ago, and continues to do so every day. Me pointing out the blatant dishonesty of the dominant leftist narrative does nothing to give the truth "a bad rep". As expected, my contributions were silenced, as providing specific criteria that shatters the dishonest leftist narrative is derided as a "rant". Bobinisrael (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The party disgracing itself is Bobinisrael. I worry that it's an organic problem. -- Jibal (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Your talk page edits on "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks" and "Christopher Stevens (diplomat)"
Hi,
Looking at your contributions, it seems that you've primarily been ranting on two different pages. Discussion is always welcomed, but excessively spamming the same points is disruptive. Doing this across multiple pages really needs to stop. You can always bring up *specific points* with *specific references*, or just edit the pages yourself.
- In other words, "discussion is welcomed" as long as it conforms to the dominant leftist narrative and is affirmed by "reputable sources" such as the NYT and BBC, despite plenty of photo and video evidence that established this shortly after the terrorist attackers murdered the ambassador and four other Americans. If you challenge the dishonest leftist narrative with specific points, however, and draw attention to this systemic dishonesty that permeates almost all of Wikipedia, then it is silenced as a "rant". 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As Cupco said above, people DO seem to have been duped by the trailer, and I agree that the silly film (if it even exists) was likely not a motivation. But again, as has been pointed out, we need proper sources, because that's simply how Wikipedia works. Nobody's stopping you from pasting or editing anything, if you do have appropriate sources. But please STOP the repeated rants against some left-wing manipulation of the page, because it accomplishes nothing and has become disruptive. Thanks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not interested in being some sort of regular Wikipedia editor, I am simply pointing out blatant dishonesty in this article that is demonstrated through both commission of false narratives and omission of relevant and inconvenient facts. Bobinisrael (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The "relevant and inconvenient facts" need to appear in reliable sources before they come here. Once they do, help us out by gathering the sources and explain what they say on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bob you're not pointing out anything other than your lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works. If you have reliable sources that back up your claims then make a change. Otherwise you are simply ranting. Ranting isn't contributing to an article. Contributing means bringing a reliable source and suggesting its use in an article.68.15.38.69 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're obviously placing your heads in the sand, why do I need to be here to correct transparently politically-motivated omissions of crucial facts that have been widely reported across the spectrum of outlets viewed as "reliable sources"? The fact that I am the *only* one here calling to attention the transparently leftist narrative being parroted in this article is evidence enough of this pervasive bias that dominates Wikipedia. Anyone who is capable of finding the official statements submitted in response to these attacks by the American State Department is more than capable of viewing photo and video evidence that documents that Islamic/ist motivations of the terrorists and demonstrators, including but not limited to the signs they held, the statements they made at the demonstrations/riots/attacks, and the graffiti that vandalised the properties of both the Cairo embassy and Benghazi consulate. This bias is not subtle, and this is not as issue of nuance. These are crucial facts to explaining the nature of these events and the motivations of those behind them, and they are not given ANY mention in the article (for obvious reasons). I am simply here to point it out, and rather than address my valid points, I get infantile requests like "prove it". If you editors were really committed to honest composition of the articles you edit, then you would take two seconds to do an internet search of "Benghazi consulate graffiti" (or something along those lines) and see the AP photography that has been widely-published. Instead, you are here to rant against me about Wikipedia policies, in an effort to preserve a non-existent reputation of integrity for Wikipedia. Moreover, you want to shut down legitimate criticism of a horribly written article by accusing me of overly pontificating and shouting from an internet soapbox with this inside lingo of Wikipedia acronyms. I don't need to edit the article to accurately point out the blatant dishonesty that runs through it, and I don't need to spoonfeed you widely-reported facts in order not to be "ranting". I am providing accurate and honest criticism of a horribly written article, and I am not hear to sanitise my delivery in order to be sensitive to the pretentious egos of Wikipedia editors who are essentially glorified internet forum dwellers. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you have no sources? Got it. Photo and video alone is not "evidence". Editors don't draw their own conclusions. That would violate both Original Research and Synthesis. You clearly can't find one reliable source to back up your claims or you would have by now. And you are, by definition, Soapboxing. You've suggested not a single edit or source. You've pointed out nothing.Capeo (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources out there, just because I have not spoonfed them to you does not mean they don't exist. Perhaps in your Wikipedia universe, nothing exists until someone posts a link to a NYT or BBC article. I have clearly indicated important facts that have been omitted from the article. I am providing legitimate and constructive criticism of systemic flaws that continue to poison Wikipedia, with specific examples listed in two articles, yet you would rather deride my contributing as "soapboxing", "ranting", or "vandalising". Bobinisrael (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- For future reference, the burden of proof is not upon us. If someone makes a claim, they must provide a reliable source. It is not our job to find the reliable source for them. That being said, I have done so in this case, but I will not do so in the future. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not important to me whether or not the facts as widely reported actually make it into the article. What I am doing in the talk page of the article is simple: drawing attention to the pervasive dishonesty that manifests itself through incredulous omissions of crucial information. I am not obligated to link sources of widely reported facts if I do not intend on implementing a specific edit and claim. As far as the editors are concerned, I would imagine that it certainly IS their job (volunteer or otherwise) to operate in good faith (and perhaps the slightest degree of competence?) and include widely reported and relevant facts to an article. Clearly, both good faith AND competence are lacking for many reasons which I have clearly articulated. It seems to me that some people around here are oversensitive and distressed that their echo chamber of like-minded politicisation is being disrupted by a new arrival, being more concerned with congeniality than with the quality and accuracy of the article being discussed. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- You may benefit from meatball:AssumeStupidityNotMalice except reading "insufficient study of the news sources" for "stupidity." —Cupco 02:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not important to me whether or not the facts as widely reported actually make it into the article. What I am doing in the talk page of the article is simple: drawing attention to the pervasive dishonesty that manifests itself through incredulous omissions of crucial information. I am not obligated to link sources of widely reported facts if I do not intend on implementing a specific edit and claim. As far as the editors are concerned, I would imagine that it certainly IS their job (volunteer or otherwise) to operate in good faith (and perhaps the slightest degree of competence?) and include widely reported and relevant facts to an article. Clearly, both good faith AND competence are lacking for many reasons which I have clearly articulated. It seems to me that some people around here are oversensitive and distressed that their echo chamber of like-minded politicisation is being disrupted by a new arrival, being more concerned with congeniality than with the quality and accuracy of the article being discussed. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- For future reference, the burden of proof is not upon us. If someone makes a claim, they must provide a reliable source. It is not our job to find the reliable source for them. That being said, I have done so in this case, but I will not do so in the future. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources out there, just because I have not spoonfed them to you does not mean they don't exist. Perhaps in your Wikipedia universe, nothing exists until someone posts a link to a NYT or BBC article. I have clearly indicated important facts that have been omitted from the article. I am providing legitimate and constructive criticism of systemic flaws that continue to poison Wikipedia, with specific examples listed in two articles, yet you would rather deride my contributing as "soapboxing", "ranting", or "vandalising". Bobinisrael (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you have no sources? Got it. Photo and video alone is not "evidence". Editors don't draw their own conclusions. That would violate both Original Research and Synthesis. You clearly can't find one reliable source to back up your claims or you would have by now. And you are, by definition, Soapboxing. You've suggested not a single edit or source. You've pointed out nothing.Capeo (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're obviously placing your heads in the sand, why do I need to be here to correct transparently politically-motivated omissions of crucial facts that have been widely reported across the spectrum of outlets viewed as "reliable sources"? The fact that I am the *only* one here calling to attention the transparently leftist narrative being parroted in this article is evidence enough of this pervasive bias that dominates Wikipedia. Anyone who is capable of finding the official statements submitted in response to these attacks by the American State Department is more than capable of viewing photo and video evidence that documents that Islamic/ist motivations of the terrorists and demonstrators, including but not limited to the signs they held, the statements they made at the demonstrations/riots/attacks, and the graffiti that vandalised the properties of both the Cairo embassy and Benghazi consulate. This bias is not subtle, and this is not as issue of nuance. These are crucial facts to explaining the nature of these events and the motivations of those behind them, and they are not given ANY mention in the article (for obvious reasons). I am simply here to point it out, and rather than address my valid points, I get infantile requests like "prove it". If you editors were really committed to honest composition of the articles you edit, then you would take two seconds to do an internet search of "Benghazi consulate graffiti" (or something along those lines) and see the AP photography that has been widely-published. Instead, you are here to rant against me about Wikipedia policies, in an effort to preserve a non-existent reputation of integrity for Wikipedia. Moreover, you want to shut down legitimate criticism of a horribly written article by accusing me of overly pontificating and shouting from an internet soapbox with this inside lingo of Wikipedia acronyms. I don't need to edit the article to accurately point out the blatant dishonesty that runs through it, and I don't need to spoonfeed you widely-reported facts in order not to be "ranting". I am providing accurate and honest criticism of a horribly written article, and I am not hear to sanitise my delivery in order to be sensitive to the pretentious egos of Wikipedia editors who are essentially glorified internet forum dwellers. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bob you're not pointing out anything other than your lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works. If you have reliable sources that back up your claims then make a change. Otherwise you are simply ranting. Ranting isn't contributing to an article. Contributing means bringing a reliable source and suggesting its use in an article.68.15.38.69 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The "relevant and inconvenient facts" need to appear in reliable sources before they come here. Once they do, help us out by gathering the sources and explain what they say on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012b
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Came here to say the same. Your editing is not constructive, and is hindering the efforts of others to use the talk page for its intended purpose. Please desist or you may end up blocked. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe these warnings are contrary to WP:BITE and WP:AGF for this new editor whose comments have had an acerbic tone but are supported by reliable news articles. —Cupco 23:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- These warnings follow the discussions above, and discussions on talk pages. I think everyone involved has tried to WP:AGF fairly well (many users tried to explain things quite politely many times, despite the user never being WP:CIVIL in return), but the user's stance hasn't changed, nor has he shown any desire to do anything but comment on the talk pages. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but when it becomes unconstructive and the same material is added over and over and the same points brought up repeatedly, without any apparent intention to engage in a productive conversation...well, there has to be a point where the user is strongly warned. I'd love to see Bobinisrael paste refs to support his long comments, comment without attacking other editors, etc, but he has explicitly said he does not want to do those things. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The news sources at Talk:2012_U.S._diplomatic_missions_attacks#Evidence_for_coordinated_attacks support Bob's position. —Cupco 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have a problem with Bob's positions. I have a problem with how he presents his positions. I'd be happy to engage in discussion, and tried to do so many times on that article's talk page, but failed repeatedly, as did pretty much all other editors. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am unconcerned with being blocked. If Wikipedia cannot tolerate valid criticism of pervasive dishonesty that infects its articles, and is more concerned with the tone of discussions rather than the content being composed, then so be it. I have repeatedly brought up recurring flaws in two articles because THEY ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED. I am unsurprised that feathers have been ruffled as a consequence of my contributions. My contributions are derided as "rants", "soapboxing", or otherwise being written off as meaningless discussion. The reality? My criticisms on the talk page have brought forward more relevant content than the critiques of my criticisms. Clearly, many Wikipedia "editors" are on the prowl to silence me because I shatter dishonest political narratives that they are committed to reinforcing. Serious discussion about article composition is "disruptive" and somehow "hindering" efforts to edit the article according to members of the dishonest consensus narrative such as 2011:db8 and Seb az86556. That's fine, I expected it. Go ahead and block me and reinforce your echo chamber. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bob, everyone else understands your position clearly. Having said that, Wikipedians have been asking for you to help them by finding sources. That is the correct way to do things on here. If a user complains but makes no effort to help the article by finding sources, insults the userbase, and then complains of a conspiracy when facing sanctions, that user is not only responsible for his own block, that user is responsible for maintaining the very echo chamber he/she is complaining about because he/she did not find a solution to the problem and instead disrupted the encyclopedia. Your points have been fairly addressed. If there are no sources covering the aspects you want included, show an acceptance of the fact that Wikipedia will not cover those aspects, and that it would be detrimental of Wikipedia to have original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, your concerns about the article title were addressed in your favor. —Cupco 03:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am unconcerned with being blocked. If Wikipedia cannot tolerate valid criticism of pervasive dishonesty that infects its articles, and is more concerned with the tone of discussions rather than the content being composed, then so be it. I have repeatedly brought up recurring flaws in two articles because THEY ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED. I am unsurprised that feathers have been ruffled as a consequence of my contributions. My contributions are derided as "rants", "soapboxing", or otherwise being written off as meaningless discussion. The reality? My criticisms on the talk page have brought forward more relevant content than the critiques of my criticisms. Clearly, many Wikipedia "editors" are on the prowl to silence me because I shatter dishonest political narratives that they are committed to reinforcing. Serious discussion about article composition is "disruptive" and somehow "hindering" efforts to edit the article according to members of the dishonest consensus narrative such as 2011:db8 and Seb az86556. That's fine, I expected it. Go ahead and block me and reinforce your echo chamber. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have a problem with Bob's positions. I have a problem with how he presents his positions. I'd be happy to engage in discussion, and tried to do so many times on that article's talk page, but failed repeatedly, as did pretty much all other editors. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The news sources at Talk:2012_U.S._diplomatic_missions_attacks#Evidence_for_coordinated_attacks support Bob's position. —Cupco 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like some very helpful users have found sources that do support some of what you are saying. That was very beneficial of them to do so, and I congratulate them for what they did. But you need to understand that from here on forward, the person making the claim is responsible for finding reliable sources. Now, I can help point out where you can find reliable sources. For current events, Google News is perhaps the best way of finding them. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not obligated to spoonfeed the editors of this article, who are supposed to operating in good faith, to provide "reliable sources" to support the widely reported facts. It is my choice whether or not I want to invest the five seconds of time required to substantiate "my claims" via an internet search. More importantly, I am accurately pointing out a blatant example of systemic bias on Wikipedia, given the fact that many things I have stated have been WIDELY REPORTED yet somehow still remain completely omitted from the article. Here we are, days later, and there is still NO MENTION of vandalism on the damaged Benghazi consulate with Islamic/ist messages ("Allahu Akbhar/God is greater", "the is no prophet but Muhamad", etc). If there was a sincere prevalence of good faith in this community towards the objective of composing quality articles with accurate content, then such a thing would not still be missing from the article. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- ":I am not obligated to spoonfeed the editors of this article, who are supposed to operating in good faith, to provide "reliable sources" to support the widely reported facts." -- No. This is not how Wikipedia works, in policy or practice. It is the job of the person making the claim to provide evidence to support the claim. The burden of proof, both philosophically and practically, lies with the one making the argument. It is not our job to do the work of finding reliable sources for your claims. *If you provide a reliable source, and it is relevant to the article, it will likely be included*. Your argumenative and abrasive nature is not within the spirit of collaboration that the community operates with, and if you continue to act in the manner that you are, you will not succeed in having any of your changes implemented. If you would actually like to improve the article and become a quality contributor to the project, I suggest that you try to not agitate and annoy all the people that are also working towards the same goal. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, there is NO POLICY on Wikipedia that requires me to provide a "reliable source" when I make contributions on the talk page. I will not apologise for levying accurate criticisms against absurd compositions of articles. I will also acquiesce to blatantly dishonest narratives that are deliberately composed via omissions of crucial facts in various articles. Like several others, you are more concerned with demeanour and candour than with accuracy and quality of articles. I am also not obligated by any Wikipedia policy to "become a quality contributor" as you define it. I will continue to levy accurate and valid criticisms of horribly written articles, and I will also continue to expect overly-sensitive "editors" (such as yourself, perhaps) to pursue me with hostility as I threaten the dominance of their worldview on Wikipedia. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no policy or guideline that requires critics to provide sources for their talk page critiques, and there is nothing prohibiting making very abrasive statements about how bad an article or its editors in general are. However, WP:NPA is a policy, and telling someone that they have an "argumentative and abrasive nature" clearly violates it. There is no way to discern such a nature from temporary agitation over the internet. Similarly, WP:BITE is an actual behavioral guideline. —Cupco 22:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- What is going on here is clear, certain individuals obsess over congeniality and delude themselves into believing that harmonious consensus is more important than a quality article with accurate information. This is why there are certain folks who have now targeted me and pursue me zealously, wishing to silence me. It is impossible to assume good faith with such individuals who prioritise the superficial over the substantial. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you really believe that the name-calling coming from your side makes it easy to assume good faith? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- What is going on here is clear, certain individuals obsess over congeniality and delude themselves into believing that harmonious consensus is more important than a quality article with accurate information. This is why there are certain folks who have now targeted me and pursue me zealously, wishing to silence me. It is impossible to assume good faith with such individuals who prioritise the superficial over the substantial. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- ":I am not obligated to spoonfeed the editors of this article, who are supposed to operating in good faith, to provide "reliable sources" to support the widely reported facts." -- No. This is not how Wikipedia works, in policy or practice. It is the job of the person making the claim to provide evidence to support the claim. The burden of proof, both philosophically and practically, lies with the one making the argument. It is not our job to do the work of finding reliable sources for your claims. *If you provide a reliable source, and it is relevant to the article, it will likely be included*. Your argumenative and abrasive nature is not within the spirit of collaboration that the community operates with, and if you continue to act in the manner that you are, you will not succeed in having any of your changes implemented. If you would actually like to improve the article and become a quality contributor to the project, I suggest that you try to not agitate and annoy all the people that are also working towards the same goal. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not obligated to spoonfeed the editors of this article, who are supposed to operating in good faith, to provide "reliable sources" to support the widely reported facts. It is my choice whether or not I want to invest the five seconds of time required to substantiate "my claims" via an internet search. More importantly, I am accurately pointing out a blatant example of systemic bias on Wikipedia, given the fact that many things I have stated have been WIDELY REPORTED yet somehow still remain completely omitted from the article. Here we are, days later, and there is still NO MENTION of vandalism on the damaged Benghazi consulate with Islamic/ist messages ("Allahu Akbhar/God is greater", "the is no prophet but Muhamad", etc). If there was a sincere prevalence of good faith in this community towards the objective of composing quality articles with accurate content, then such a thing would not still be missing from the article. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you really believe that the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith refers to a genuine desire to be congenial rather than improve the quality and accuracy of articles? Nevermind the fact that I have never engaged in any name-calling. Please continue to hound me while doing your best to shut down constructive criticism that doesn't conform to your worldview. I am sure it will make improve the quality of Wikipedia's information. Apparently dissenting from the dominant and dishonest narrative in an article and describing flaws in detail results in derision of such contributions as "disruptive editing" and threats of being blocked/banned. Keep up the good work. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- "dishonest" is telling people they are liars. In my book, that's name-calling. Telling people that they "suspend reality" is the same as calling them delusional or insane. Claiming that editors have "a dishonest agenda" is saying that the lies are deliberate and part of a wider plan. You tell people they are "willingly parroting" things, that's pretty close to either saying "brainless" or "vicious". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am referring to a dishonest narrative that is being parroted in the article. My sincere view (which is the reality)? It is a dishonest narrative established by the terrorists who carried out these attacks and murders to use the YouTube movie trailer as a false pretext. Furthermore, the YouTube video was used to galvanise people in order to provide commotion and human traffic to assist the terrorist operations, which is a typical method from Islamic/ist terrorists. The truth is that these events would have occurred with or without this video ever existing. So, this dishonest narrative is being parroted in the article despite plenty of widely-reported facts that contradict this narrative. I am not responsible for how your sensitive ego infers messaging from my statements. Even after I explained this in detail, I was responded to with hostility, with persons like yourself more concerned with silencing me than with actually improving the article. If you haven't yet realised it, I am here entirely in good faith with my objective to be the provision of valid and detailed criticism of horribly written articles. I will not apologise for speaking candidly or breaking the consensus of the dishonest narrative that remains prevalent in the article. Perhaps you should resume your efforts of trying to silence me, you've been quite successful at it, so far.
- "your sensitive ego" is a clear personal attack which you've just added to the list of previous attacks. Yu really shouldn't continue with this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is there some other way which one should interpret your obsession with my unapologetic criticisms of article compositions? Clearly, you're more concerned with congeniality than content. I guess dissent isn't well tolerated around here. Perhaps you should go solicit some Wikipedia administrators to block or ban me, which is what you really want, anyways. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no intention of doing that. I'm just telling you that your concerns will be addressed in a much more productive way if you change your tone. Of course, that is your choice and you can keep running against a wall claiming it's the wall fault and whatnot. And you can keep insulting people while talking about their sensitive egos. You're just wasting space with that and if the walls of text get too long, I'll hat-hab them again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is there some other way which one should interpret your obsession with my unapologetic criticisms of article compositions? Clearly, you're more concerned with congeniality than content. I guess dissent isn't well tolerated around here. Perhaps you should go solicit some Wikipedia administrators to block or ban me, which is what you really want, anyways. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- "your sensitive ego" is a clear personal attack which you've just added to the list of previous attacks. Yu really shouldn't continue with this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am referring to a dishonest narrative that is being parroted in the article. My sincere view (which is the reality)? It is a dishonest narrative established by the terrorists who carried out these attacks and murders to use the YouTube movie trailer as a false pretext. Furthermore, the YouTube video was used to galvanise people in order to provide commotion and human traffic to assist the terrorist operations, which is a typical method from Islamic/ist terrorists. The truth is that these events would have occurred with or without this video ever existing. So, this dishonest narrative is being parroted in the article despite plenty of widely-reported facts that contradict this narrative. I am not responsible for how your sensitive ego infers messaging from my statements. Even after I explained this in detail, I was responded to with hostility, with persons like yourself more concerned with silencing me than with actually improving the article. If you haven't yet realised it, I am here entirely in good faith with my objective to be the provision of valid and detailed criticism of horribly written articles. I will not apologise for speaking candidly or breaking the consensus of the dishonest narrative that remains prevalent in the article. Perhaps you should resume your efforts of trying to silence me, you've been quite successful at it, so far.
- "dishonest" is telling people they are liars. In my book, that's name-calling. Telling people that they "suspend reality" is the same as calling them delusional or insane. Claiming that editors have "a dishonest agenda" is saying that the lies are deliberate and part of a wider plan. You tell people they are "willingly parroting" things, that's pretty close to either saying "brainless" or "vicious". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
I would like to express my appreciation for your providing a reputable news source in support of your editing suggestions as you did here. —Cupco 22:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- It quite telling that a person such as yourself, with poor reading comprehension skills who seems fixated on fulfilling personal vendettas and preserving the echo chamber of consensus around dishonest political narrative that is prevalent on Wikipedia, is entrusted with administration abilities. You have censored contributions of mine by stupidly or dishonestly labelling them as "rants", and your most recent response to a contribution of mine demonstrated clearly an inability to read basic English. You should warn yourself not to reply to contributions until you've actually invested the fifteen seconds or so required to read and digest the information instead of desperately looking for a "gotcha" moment which only ended up making you look foolish.Bobinisrael (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
AN/I notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This may or may not concern you directly, but per policy, I am obliged to notify you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted articles
You created to pages called Seb az86556 and 2001:db8. I think you were intended to start a sock-puppet investigation on them. However, what you actually did was create an article in the main encyclopedia. I've deleted them, since there shouldn't, of course, be an article on "2001:db8". Now, if you actually want to file an SPI, go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions there (there's a box to enter the master's name; that will create a properly located page). However, please note that you need to provide evidence to support your accusation--you can't simply list the two editors and say they're part of a conspiracy against you. You will need to provide diffs which explicitly show similarities between the two accounts. Truth be told, I strongly recommend against it anyway. As far as I can tell, you've simply picked two editors who oppose what you've been doing, and are just guessing that they created a joe job account to harm you. However, that guess is not sufficient to block; more importantly, it's not even sufficient enough for a Checkuser to compare the technical details of their accounts. Our policies on the matter are quite strict: we cannot compare two people's technical data (IP address, etc.) without strong evidence, which you have not presented. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have good reason to believe one of them did this, because of a pattern of dishonest attacks they've levied against my contributions. The similarity of language used by what I suspect to be the fake account Donfarberman and contributions I've made cannot be a coincidence. Moreover, both 2001:db8 and Seb az86556 have made it clear that they wish to silence me. If there is sufficient reason to compare technical details between my account and that of Donfarberman, then there is sufficient reason to do the same with both 2001:db8 and Seb az86556, who've not hidden their hostility to my contributions. Otherwise, this sort of behaviour will be done again and again, with no accountability on the side of those carrying out the "joe jobs". Moreover, it should be quite obvious that those malevolent users who undertake "joe jobs" intentionally mask their prose in order to falsely harm another user. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- My current policy is to ignore you, other than to note to WP:DNFTT. Though the crap on ANI and SPI makes that harder now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- And when that fails, you create a secondary account to pull a "joe job" on me, right? I look forward to reading more of your edits urging others not to pay any attention to me, lest they actually get a dose of honest and quality content. The horror!Bobinisrael (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you have any evidence past "these editors are conspiring to make left-wing attacks against me, so they must have sockpuppeted me!", then you need to open a WP:SPI investigation. Continuing to accuse multiple editors (here and on ANI) of something that egregious without evidence is simply defamatory. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- And when that fails, you create a secondary account to pull a "joe job" on me, right? I look forward to reading more of your edits urging others not to pay any attention to me, lest they actually get a dose of honest and quality content. The horror!Bobinisrael (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- My current policy is to ignore you, other than to note to WP:DNFTT. Though the crap on ANI and SPI makes that harder now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Honest inquiry.
I've never encountered it personally but worse things are not as uncommon as I wish they were. The correct response, in my opinion, is to conform to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and especially User:Mindspillage/disputes. There is nothing you can possibly say of the form "editors are bad because X" that won't be addressed ten times faster by ten times as many editors if you state it in the form "readers are not well served by X" (note that the two statements are semantically equivalent.) The former tactic merely wastes your time that you could be spending addressing the next concern. —Cupco 03:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You've been exonerated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobinisrael but my advice still stands. You can catch more flies with honey than ice water. —Cupco 19:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the phrase is that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It should be obvious, though, I dislike flies and have no intention of attracting them. Bobinisrael (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right. So you want to counter WP:BIAS, right? There is actually a project for that: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The point is that you can choose to either do that in an efficient way, or in a way that probably spikes your blood pressure and makes people so angry at you that they want to make joe-job accounts to get you in trouble while you spend countless hours making little headway. People will evaluate your credibility by this decision that you make, too. —Cupco 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Predictably, the "WikiProject Countering systemic bias" is itself biased, because it is primarily focused on systemic bias that it believes results from a lack of editors from a certain gender, ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality. What Wikipedia lacks is IDEOLOGICAL/POLITICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL diversity. The entire WikiProject that you linked me to was clearly conceived of by people with the same leftist biases that are so prevalent on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if Wikipedia has more women, homosexuals, Jews, or Argentinians if they all share the same value set. It's a completely false sense of diversity. For heaven's sake, the Wikiproject recommends student contributors to consult with professors of "minority, women's, and critical studies", which we know are bastions of leftist indoctrination. I'm surprised the recommendation didn't also include a request for volunteers to consult professors from "queer/LGBT, social justice, and international development studies". Don't you see how deep this bias runs in Wikipedia? It really is a disgrace. Bobinisrael (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right. So you want to counter WP:BIAS, right? There is actually a project for that: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The point is that you can choose to either do that in an efficient way, or in a way that probably spikes your blood pressure and makes people so angry at you that they want to make joe-job accounts to get you in trouble while you spend countless hours making little headway. People will evaluate your credibility by this decision that you make, too. —Cupco 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou=
Thanks mate, I am the original writer of the 2012 Sydney Islamic Riots, and I just wanted to say thanks for sticking up for it. Nobody has a problem with the Cronulla riots article, because that was white people rioting, but when muslims do it suddenly you just cant reference it or your a racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Consider that the leftist bias is so prevalent around Wikipedia that there was not only a desire to retitle your article to cleanse it of references to Islam and Muslims, but a serious request and consideration to completely delete it outright! Bobinisrael (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both these guys have been banned. Thank you Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages
Deleting someone's comments from the talk page, like you did, constitutes vandalism. This is all the more offensive if you are engaged in a debate with them. Please read the the policy on vandalism.
I will assume good faith that your deletion was unintentional, but please don't let it happen again.VR talk 00:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely a mistake, my apologies. I have no idea how that happened. Bobinisrael (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries.VR talk 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
...and I suggest you try to respond without using the words 'leftist bias on Wikipedia' yet again, if only because it is getting boring. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism
Could you please not characterise the good-faith edits others make as vandalism? By definition, they cannot be. --John (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a good faith edit, it is a complete deletion of a well-composed paragraph written from a NPOV. Moreover, this user has continually pursued me and tried to silence me. By DEFINITION, the persistent deletions of this paragraph ARE vandalism ; Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason. Deriding the sources I've used as "conservative blogs", which are established as reliable sources, is not the behaviour of an editor operating in good faith, to say nothing of the personal attacks he's made. Anyways, I will await review from someone who actually has some teeth around here, and hopefully some honesty.Bobinisrael (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, back at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This ain't over yet, the fun continues... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Perhaps you can look at something.
That O'Brien story is probably more appropriate for Wikipedia in culture than her article. I'd prefer you not ask me for any further help until you've accepted my advice above. I don't want to be made a part of some pointless lets-see-who-can-ignore-WP:CIVIL-the-hardest feud. —Cupco 06:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine, although this is more than simply "Wikipedia in culture". See you around. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
ANI discussion reopened
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Please note that another user has reopened this discussion, although I did provide my input. I'm merely informing you as a courtesy, since I'm not sure if you're aware it's been reopened.
Reopened discussion: [2] – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)