User talk:Mr. Hicks The III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yeor

What on earth are you on about? Hornplease 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasons were explained on the talkpage and in edit summaries. Don't go around calling people vandals while concealed under a new account, whoever you are.

'Sourced' information that misinterprets a source is always open to removal. In any case, you performed a blind revert, not only of material that was 'sourced'. Hornplease 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Thanks awfully for letting me know about 3RR! You know, I would be amazed if someone blocked me short of 3RR for encouraging people to try discussion on the talkpage! It would be such fun to take that to AN/I. I note you haven't yet bothered to explain your blind revert.

Oh, and less charitable, forsooth. Someone would have to be twelve to call something that removes a peacock-y phrase and inserts sourced material vandalism. Hornplease 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do take it to AN/I, please, please. My edit comments pleading with people to use the talkpage are so pathetic, they deserve a wider audience.

That my edit removed 'sourced' material is nonsense. As I have explained several times- including already on this talkpage - the citations to course pages do not support the text that the term is now widely used independent of BY's work. And removing sourced material is not a 'no-no'. Its done all the time. (As you no doubt already know.)

And as for my past behaviour on that page, I note that I am the only one on the talkpage. Heh. Hornplease 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] camera

the article you've been debating about with another user has been mostly validated on battle of jenin. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Mr. Hicks The III 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

a few days ago, User PalestineRemembred explained why CAMERA is non-RS, however, there was similar discussion on battle of jenin regarding that source, which led to it's acceptance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Ok, I'll edit the article accordingly - and would appreciate your support there. Mr. Hicks The III 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has repeatedly claimed that CAMERA is a valid RS eg here - notice how the discussion continues endlessly in that archive page of the Battle of Jenin article as consensus is reached and then trashed again. Eventually, the matter was taken to an RfC where it was immediately swarmed, in particular by a POV editor later topic-banned for tendentious editing and serious other offences. However, some non-involved editors did participate, I have summarised the results here. As you will see, CAMERA was rejected there by non-involved editors (2.5 to none I called it - or perhaps 2 to none if we accept Jaakobou's valued interjections). CAMERA has been subjected to scrutiny on several other occasions (often with much better participation from experienced editors), and has always been rejected. It is difficult to understand how a careful editor, familiar with the use of sources, can repeatedly make such bad mistakes. PR^talk 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assesment of CAMERA. It is a partisan source, but not an unrelaible source. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't behave as if the procedures and conclusions of the community don't apply to you. PR^talk 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You should be he last editor on wikipedia to talk. Nevertheless, I am not behaving in any such way - I disagree with your assesment of CAMERA, and your claim that it has always been rejected as a source is simply false. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)