User talk:Cwobeel: Difference between revisions

This is Cwobeel's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Thanks for creating Amanda and Jerad Miller, Cwobeel!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good timely article. Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dave Brat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ Episcopal Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

These term is not well recognized or widely used. It has not gained the traction some have desired. It seems to be fan cruft of a term. 172.56.11.229 (talk)

I deleted the photo because it depicts a person of European descent as an African immigrant which is ridiculous. That person is genetically 100% European and is not viewed as or treated as an African in the United States or any other country.

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your excellent work at the article on the Shooting of Michael Brown. Please keep up your efforts on the encyclopedia: they are appreciated! - Darouet (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to defend the belief that if a source says something it immediately deserves to be included, even if it is proven false? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: Given sources A and B, both referenced to a reliable source, and both from experts or notable people:

1. Source A says "X and Y happened" or "X is Y, because of Z". ChrisGualtieri, does some original research and decides that Source A is false. Source A can and should be included.
2. Source A says "X and Y happened" or "X is Y, because of Z". Source B says "Source A got that wrong.". We include both source A and Source B, and let the reader decide.
3. Source A says "X and Y happened" or "X is Y, because of Z". Source B says " X and Y did not happened, what happened is P and Q". We include both source A and Source B, and let the reader decide.

That is, my friend, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research when its in a source. It does not need to be the same source or be used in the article. You think this source is reliable? How about this one? Or this one? Or Huffington Post? You might be thinking - oh gosh, Chris is surely off his rocker, but Daily Mail is a farce like Huffington Post and none of them should be used at all. They fail WP:IRS and that's WP:TRUTH. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentation is fallacious, because it has nothing to do with the articles we are editing. Listen to other editor's comments in talk page, and maybe you will understand that your position on sources is incorrect as it relates to criticism reported in reliable sources by experts in the field. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has everything to do with this case. Are those sources reliable? Would you insert them into an article because of what they say? I am serious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph and other media outlets are not monolithic. Some of what they carry is trivia and entertainment news, but that does not make them unreliable sources for other type of material they publish. Same applies to the HuffPo. So to answer your questions, it depends on the context. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTTO is worth a read because it shows the problem with media. Thanks for clarifying the issue in the article space, sorry to be an ass. I saw both Ferguson reports in the paragraph and went stupid. You learned from the Huffington Post source and I fell for it as well. Clarification to the arguments is something that I should ask as well - because I clearly didn't parse both. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTTO does not come close to the articles we edit, but I see your point. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the article - its the sources which made the whole thing up. And yes, this whole August 15 thing with Jackson is conspiracy talk and completely false. A single statement misheard and misapplied resulted in confusion. Jackson answered truthfully, but people read anything they want into words. Jackson confirmed that Wilson stopped them for blocking traffic and then identified them as suspects right afterwards because of the box of cigars - there was no "conspiracy" to come up with something like that on August 15. It is already in the record that Wilson was aware of the robbery to begin with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your interpretation, mine is completely different than yours (which I will keep to myself). So, we just report what sources say and let the readers decide if Jackson was conspiring, incompetent, or doing an excellent job. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact: in press conference Jackson says that the stop was unrelated to the robbery
• Fact: in press conference jackson says that the only reason for releasing the robbery tape, was because of FOIA ( I suggest you take a few ninutes and watch the press conference in its entirety. It is an eye opener, in particular the Q&A session he did later that day)
• Fact: In press conference, Jackson said that the investigation has been passed to county police
• Fact: FPD did not file an incident report, because investigation was in the hands of county police
• Fact: Jackson releases tape of robbery, despite the fact that it was not his investigation anymore, so either it was unrelated to shooting and it was OK to release, or it was related to the shooting in which case he should not have released it
• Fact: hours later Jackson said that Wilson made an ID
• Fact: Release of video tape triggered riots and unrest

So, read into it what you want, in my opinion: a fuckup of enormous proportions by FPD. [1]- Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify this then with two statements using documents prior and during the event.

• Fact - Transcripts from the August 10 interview contains the original reason for the interaction and the specifically includes the details about the cigarillos. Even the reason for Wilson backing up to question them again was given on page 14.
• Note - Huffington Post has this article containing the Q&A section relevant to this.

• Female Reporter - So the officer involved in the shooting... was he aware of the robbery call?
• Tom Jackson - I don't know. I don't know what came out in his interview. I know his initial contact was not related to the robbery. It was related to... blocking road.
• Male reporter - You're telling us... You're telling us that when the officer stopped Michael Brown for the first time... he was not aware Brown was a suspect in the robbery?
• Tom Jackson - No. He was just coming off of a sick case, which is why the ambulance was there so quickly.

From there the interview goes largely as reported. However, Huffington Post which contains the link to the video ignores that part of the context. Jackson does not know and confirms it with "I don't know. I don't know what came out in his interview. I know his initial contact was not related to the robbery." This whole conspiracy is twisting and ignoring that Jackson did not know if Wilson was aware. The article - even linking to the source makes an assumption:

"The initial contact between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown was not related to the alleged theft of cigars," Jackson said, indicating Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in the robbery.

This is a false assumption because Jackson did not know and confirmed he did not know if Wilson knew. A lovely farce which is proven upon listening to the actual Q&A with additional knowledge of the situation. I'll create a note because it seems confusing. But unless I am grossly mistaken it is clear that Jackson was responding to something he did not know the full details of and records show a full five days prior that Wilson had already gave a recorded interview giving it exactly as Jackson would clarify in the following hours. There was no conspiracy created on August 15, it was Jackson's ignorance used to advance a striking accusation in the media which was corrected and clarified, but used to further the claim of "conspiracy" by an upset public. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is you who is using the word "conspiracy", not me. So rather to attempt to make me look like I am saying there was a conspiracy, just focus on the facts as reported in the sources we have.I think we are done with this discussion here, let's focus on presenting the sources in the most neutral way possible and without judging them in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we clear that Huffington Post is wrong and Jackson's words were taken out of context or are you saying that we still need to keep this farce in the article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the diagram you made of the Michael Brown shooting scene; thank you, a lot. Sumana Harihareswara 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sweet, you made that? Nice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of a collaborative effort over a week, with very useful feedback from fellow editors. Just see the file history [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure why you keep deleting this subsection header. Subsections exist to organize sections, and this particular section ("Medical career") has as almost half of its content a discussion of an entity that Rand Paul created. It makes sense, then, to have a subsection header that marks the transition from the discussion of his medical career in general to the description of the NBO in particular. (Among other things, it signals to the reader that the remainder of this section is no longer about his medical career in general.)

The redirect exists, as redirects do, to point to the content related to the name of the redirect. There's nothing to fix; it is pointing to the most appropriate location in the encyclopedia. Having the subsection title in place makes it obvious to someone following the redirect where the content they're looking for begins.

One reason you've given for deleting this header is that the NBO is not noteworthy. It's in the encyclopedia, which implies that it's noteworthy. (My own take is that it's noteworthy in politics, in regulatory law, and in medicine -- a doctor who is now a national legislator making a move like this is kind of unusual, right?)

If this content is in the encyclopedia at all (and I'm certainly not advocating removing it!), making it findable and making the article more readable are appropriate goals. Again, this is precisely what subsections within a section are for.

Sorry to make this so ridiculously long, but it seemed like the valid reasons for having this header in place were getting lost in the back-and-forth. If there's something I've missed behind why it shouldn't be in place, please let me know. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough explanation. My reasoning is that the "National Board of Ophthalmology" is not notable to have it's own article, even not a redirect page. I am considering bringing it to AFD. The latest incarnation of the NBO, was a made up organization. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not notable enough for an article, but it is notable notable enough for inclusion in Rand Paul's article. As such, it makes perfect sense to have an appropriately-named redirect to that content, per WP:R#CRD.

But the question here isn't really about the redirect, or the content's notability as a separate article. It's whether the "Rand Paul#Medical career" section is improved or degraded by marking the transition from a discussion of his general medical career to a discussion of the NBO and its surrounding elements. (Obviously, I think "improved", for the reasons outlined above.) Regards,NapoliRoma (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You seem to have taken it to be that the Ferguson Police's incident report does not exist. I pointed to the wrong source and was an ass about it - you caught that mistake and I apologized for the error. The fact the report exist still means it should be removed because it perpetuates a hoax, I just need to make sure that I am citing the correct source when pointing out that the source was false. As mentioned - I want you to refrain from editing the article for a bit (the talk page is fine) so we can figure out what needs to be done to get it to FA. Removing false information and such is a priority and I apologize for being an ass - I see I am being one again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: Apology accepted. Don't give it a second thought. As I said, we all make mistakes from time to time. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following thread[3] was closed at WP:AE wherein you, along with 3 other users, have been admonished for conduct incompatible with WP:BATTLE on pages covered by WP:BLP and thus WP:NEWBLPBAN . In particular the interaction between you and User: Factchecker_atyourservice is noted as the locus of the issue here.
All 4 users are reminded that casting unfounded aspersions about other editors or misrepresenting their communications is unhelpful. Furthermore Factchecker_atyourservice is singled out for ad hominem remarks. Please note that recidivism will result in escalating sanctions. Multiple avenues of dispute resolution are open to resolving disputes productively (rather than trying to “win” by excluding the other) and without breaching the rules. You are all strongly advised to avoid making any personal remarks about other editors, speculating on their intentions or making value judgments about their contributions--Cailil ^talk 13:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel, if you feel that your interaction with FCAYS is problematic I suggest you avoid him. If he starts following you to other pages then you can legitimately complain about his conduct as wikihounding. If such a situation occurs feel free to contact me--Cailil ^talk 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: thank you. This ban will hopefully help to keep FCAYS at bay. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As chicken/egg problems go, it's not hard to figure out that my intemperate remarks about your editing habits came after the display of editing habits, in each instance. If you don't take greater care in the future to not misrepresent sources and trample all over NPOV — especially when dealing with public figures of whom you have a very low opinion — a sanction against me calling you out personally is not going to have much effect. The bulk of our interactions have been edit wars, not exchanges of personal comments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in previous move discussion. I invite you to an ongoing new move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is very unusual and the edit summary even more so. Who is the first interview with? What was discussed? I'd like to know how you came to conclude that Wilson did not mention it on his first interview. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you dodging the direct question? You are implying that you know what is in that first interview again. How do you know that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NaturalNews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwobeel,

Per WP:VERIFY:

• "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."
• "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"
• " In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority."

I believe your good faith replacement of removed text violates core Wikipedia policy. All of this material is stored in the archived version of the article, and is easy enough to restore if suitable sources for their correctness become available.

Best,

Formerly 98 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michael Brown Jr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shooting of Michael brown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Shooting of Michael brown". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 January 2015.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is disruptive and incivil as it suggests that the only goal of those opposed to your way of thinking about this issue is to make Michael Brown look like a "heavy and scary ... 18-year-old black male" and thus has a chilling effect on the discussion. I have decided to warn rather than sanction with a ban or block but I would warn you that further misconduct will almost certainly result in a block or ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I accept the warning as a lesson not to take the bait. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Shooting of Michael brown, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Libertarianism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have a question. I'm kinda new to wikipedia and Im im a discussion debate with someone about BLP-related content, which only has one source. The source is a tabloid article from 2002, and it's being used as a citation to support negative content about a LP in a a current article about a film... Ironically the subject of the content isn't even related to the film. So, How can I post the discussion to the BLP notice board? I appreciate any advice You might have . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pariah_(1998_film) This is the talk page discussion Id like posted on BLP Noticeboard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shark310: You can post a request at WP:BLP/N indicating the issue. I will also take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the BLP noticeboard discussion concerning Steven Emerson. If you have the chance, could you take a look at the Steven Emerson page, there seems to be some continuing dispute regarding BLP interpretations. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reconsider your removal of my citation template. BLP is quite clear: Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. What "we" don't do is add contentious material to the lead of a BLP without reliable sources to back it up. You best remove that Islamophobia label, too. Atsme☯^Consult 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]