User talk:Xiutwel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm on wikibreak! 29 September 2006; probably for a few months —
- I'm back. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Inbox
[edit] wikify
Thank you. --Striver 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: fbi
Hi there, just back from wikibreak myself… I've supported your request for valid change/addition to the article since you presented it, and will continue to do so… hope you rest well, and thanks for the invite to the discussion… Lovelight 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:goodbye-clowns
Category:goodbye-clowns Could any wikipedia-editor please point me to a page where it is explained what this is all about? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] copyself
Rosicrucian, I thank you for all your positive contributions to Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes. They are valuable to me. I intend to pick up Wikipedia after January 8. Got any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Some thoughts I have:
- compare proposed interpretations with current adopted policy
- try and reach consensus on:
- interpretations?
- new guidelines?
- amendments to existing guidelines?
What would be a good title? 911-related? controversial-articles-related? — Xiutwel (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Care to explain this edit
Where you added a nonexistant category to your talkpage?[1]--MONGO 13:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Two topics above this one, I am asking the question: what is (was) this category for? Perhaps you can help, I remember you being mentioned in the "Village pump" post that mentioned the category? — Xiutwel (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi Xiu. User:Cplot was an editor who believed in alternate 9/11 theories. He was a very good writer, but not very good about following WP in regards to 3RR, NPA and Civil. When he got blocked for 3RR (?) he started creating sock puppets and alleging that the pro Bush editors were editing under direction of the US Gov. He based these claims on the fact that Mongo used to work for the Dept of Homeland Security, the admissions by the DOD that they had paid bloggers, Pentagon_rapid_response_operation and an article on an anti-wiki site documenting the edits to an article of some woman connected to the Bush family. He created 2 nonexistant categories which he added to supsect articles. Since his banning, he has been a tireless disruptive sockpuppet. Did you read my suggestion for the OKC bombing article on Mongo's talk page? What do you think? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Xiu and FAAFA. There's a few corrections I need to make about FAAFA's remarks above. First, you're right about Cplot being a very good writer. However, you're wrong about Cplot having problems with Wikipedia Policies. I challenge you to find an instance of Cplot being uncivil or attacking anyone personally. Cplot's contribution history is there for anyone to examine. I'm not talking about us Cplot sockpuppets. We can be ornery bastards. I'm talking about Cplot. If you'll look you'll find that Cplot was blocked by federal authorities engaging in Wikilawyring. Second, the evidence that Cplot and the Cplot sockpuppets used to come to the conclusions is not the evidence you cited above. Cplot and the Cplot sockpuppets were given photocopies of payroll stubs for the federal employees with handwritten notes indicating which Wikipedia account those correspond to. We were also given budget documents. To much information has been obscured to link this to any particular government agency. We're still trying to figure that out. So while the evidence you cite is interesting it has nothing to do with the Cplot sockpuppets (or Cplot for that matter). Thirdly, Cplot was never banned. Cplot was mistakenly blocked by MONGO who was later stripped of his administrative powers (largely for his uncivil behavior towards Cplot and the mistaken blocking). You won't find any discussion of a ban of Cplot on Wikipedia. That's been fabricated by the feds. I hope this clears things up a bit. There's so much more I could say, but it will all come out in due time. Finally, the templates have different uses. [[Category:USEBACA]] is to indicate an article or talk page is or is suspected of being controlled by United States executive branch agents (controlled article). [[Category:Good-bye clowns]] is to place on your own talk page to show your disgust with federal authorities propagandizing on Wikipedia and to show you support the organizations permanent ban from the project.. Thanks for creating a buzz about us though. --AnAppleADay 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
Hi,
what does
We can ornery bastards
mean? And I would sure like to see the photocopies you mention. You are welcome to upload them on http://talk2000.nl for instance. — Xiutwel (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I corrected some typos above. That should answer your first question. As for the photocopies, that may take some time. The person I got those from apparently broke the law just by making the photocopies (let alone sharing them with others). It took a long time to build the trust before I got we got a hold of them. We're working with some journalists we know to figure out how best to run this whole story (and when best to run it). From what I've learned these clowns also like to pretend to be opposed to one another (to create the appearance that dissenters are not simply blocked for dissenting). It's hard to believe that this goes on in America, but there you have it. Anyway, we'll be watching your activities on the wiki and see if you fit the profile for someone we could trust (though this may hit the newspapers before that happens). Either way you'll get to see the evidence. BTW, you can just post your questions on your own talk page. The socks are pretty much costless. We cannot be blocked.. -- (Cplot socks) ANewDayDawning 06:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- BTW, one way to build trust would be to keep the category on your page. Remember it's supposed to stay red. --ANewDayDawning 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] cat
[edit] reply
Dear Cplot socks,
I don't think any wikipedia editor would welcome paid operatives from any affiliation to mess with wikipedia. However, I think it is inevitable that this would occur: it's too easy and too lucrative. I therefore think it is utterly impossible to expose all "clowns" as you call them, just as it appears that (new) Cplot socks are not banned. I sympathize with your struggle for justice, but personally I think the only thing which will counter "clowns" is the quality of the guidelines and the quality of the bonafide users using these guidelines.
I will leave the category on this page for a while, to see if others would join it - but it seems not be used. I do not seek your trust and am happy to wait till after the story "hits the press". Disclaimer: I want to stress that I do *not* endorse any accusation against any single user or moderator. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your Oklahoma City dispute
Thankyou!
As for your Oklahoma City dispute, I just had a look at the talk:Oklahoma City bombing and I got a little confused because you are involved more than one dispute there :P If you could very briefly summarise the dispute you are talking about I'll take another look. Unfortunately I can't promise to do it in the next couple of weeks because of life :) Ireneshusband 05:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Oklahoma
Sorry to hear you have a life! ;) Luckily for you, it took me two weeks to reply. The current status is:
- newly, sources have been claimed that the bomb scares were in error. I have not looked at these sources yet.
- If I find these sources reliable, I would welcome a paragraph describing the bomb scares as erroneous.
- However, given the other circumstances I would not be surprised when the sources turn out not to be reliable enough to eliminate all doubt.
(And no doubt then we might have another dispute.)
- Currently, I agree with the removal of the dispute flags until I (or others) have found time to look at the issue.
- I feel it is rather tragic that simple diffences of opinion should
take so much editor's time and dispute warring, however. Cheers, — Xiutwel (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pearl harbor attack.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pearl harbor attack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
