User talk:Ckatz: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:15, 7 April 2013 editTvoz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,638 edits →Help needed for "unwatch": new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:07, 11 April 2013 edit undoAsspissage (talk \| contribs)10 edits WP:IAR Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{whale}} {{trout}} {{diet trout}} {{minnow}}
	<span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">''User talk:''Ckatz</span>
	{{User:Ckatz/Talknote}}
	{\| class="infobox" width="150"
	\|- align="center"
	\| ]
	''']'''
	----
	\|- align="center"
	\| ]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]
	\|}
	<br>
	<br>
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}}{{archive-nav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 11
	\|minthreadsleft = 0
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(5d)
	\|archive = User talk:Ckatz/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=User talk:Ckatz/Archive Index\|mask=User talk:Ckatz/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
	<br/>
	<br/>
	{{User:Ckatz/FAQ}}
	{{TOChidden}}

	== You've got mail ==

	{{You've got mail}}

	== Srebrenica Massacre ==

	This comment from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=18 is relevant to the recent intervention at the Srebrenica Massacre article

	Roscelese has misrepresented the true nature of the situation in the talkpage of the Srebrenica Massacre. There is NOT concensus on the talkpage and Roscelese knows that. Furthermore, no editor wants to use Geller's blog as a reference for anything other than showing her own opinion. Meanwhile, all editors agree that her blog is an accurate reflection of her own opinion. After misrepresenting the situation among editors on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage, Roscelese is now taking this discussion and presenting the opinions of the editors here such as The Red Pen of Doom and claiming that there is consensus that under no circumstances should Geller's blog be used as a reference. In other words Roscelese is lying. There is not consensus here that Geller's blog should not be used under any conditions. The consensus here is that the blog can not be used as a reliable source, as The Red Pen of Doom says, "for anything than her own opinion." So how is that Roscelese can take this discussion and present it as supporting his position when it does not? And how is it that Roscelese can claim consensus on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage when it clearly and obviously does not exist? It appears that Roscelese is working the system here. Furthermore, it would behoove Roscelese to inform all the other involved editors when he starts a discussion here. Instead, he instigated a discussion here without informing others, twisted the results of this discussion and manipulated the situation on the Srebrenica Massacre page such that his preferred edits have been locked in place. This is not what[REDACTED] envisioned when setting up these systems. They are not meant to be gamed but rather assist good faith discussion, something Roscelese has avoided constantly misrepresenting other editors both here and on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage. What is not clear is what his actual agenda is and why he is objecting to an example of opposition to the description of genocide being given in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. Two reliable sources -- The Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- have been cited showing that her opinion is notable whiel her own blog has been used solely for the purpose of showing her opinion, something most editors here have explicitly '''approved'''. What is going on here? ]

	== Help needed for "unwatch" ==

	{{ygm}} <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:07, 11 April 2013

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Plip!