Chamoquemas
|
Civility/edit warring
editEdit summaries such as this are unacceptable. Please try to retain a reasonable standard of civility. Also, your edits appear to be POV pushing. You may dislike the PETA, you may find their assertions ludicrous, but you may not remove notable and verifiable content from articles because you don't like it. The criticism has been reported in reliable sources, as pointed out in extensive discussion on the talk page: Daily Telegraph,NY Times, Fox News and International Herald Tribune, etc. If you really think the content should be removed, please discuss it on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. Thanks. Melsaran (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's a controversy article and not a criticism article. Swan is right to do what he does. Nobel Prize just got everyone all excited. Turtlescrubber 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
June 2008
edit
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John McCain, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. B (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
October 2011
edit
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Index (database). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 00:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
pythagoras-solutions.ch
Conflict of interest policy
edit Hello Swanbryan. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Link information
|
|---|
|
November 2011
edit Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hugo Chávez, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "
{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hugo Chávez was changed by Swanbryan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.969902 on 2011-11-25T23:18:27+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Chavez edit
editI've had to revert this edit of yours, because (i) a wholesale removal of Venezuelanalysis sourcing is unjustified (ii) you mostly left the sourced text in place, minus the source it came from (iii) you broke some references. Please discuss on talk problems you have with specific use of specific sources, and how to resolve such problems. Rd232 talk 20:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and please don't use edit summaries in the polemical way you did here. Because they can't be edited, it's important to be neutral and clear. Also, you referred to "American Wikipedia", which as a British editor made me spill my tea ;) Rd232 talk 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No really - please do not try to remove longstanding content by edit warring. Discuss on the article talk page. Rd232 talk 20:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No, really, please discuss this. You haven't even deigned to respond to repeated messages from me on this page. I've now created Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Edit_warring_to_remove_all_Venezuelanalysis_sourcing, please go there. Rd232 talk 20:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rd232 talk 21:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Re this edit: Google Books may show different content to people in different countries (assuming you've not broken the URL somehow). I've just checked the link and it works fine for me. But even if it didn't - there's no requirement that sources be online. Rd232 talk 23:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rd232 talk 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Re Lonely Planet - try again, it's in the right-hand margin.
- Re labelling academic sources blog posts - say what?
- "save that for your retweets" - what the hell are you talking about? Are you confusing me with someone else?
- As I asked at talk:Hugo Chavez, what do you mean by "distended"?
- Are you ever going to talk to me like I'm a human being?
Rd232 talk 00:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. I've had to block you for two days because of the disruptive effect that your editing is having on multiple pages. Why are you repeatedly removing valid sources and information based on them? If you wish to respond to my question, you can do it here easily; if you wish to respond to the relevant section at WP:ANI, just write it here and then add {{helpme}} with a request to copy your comments from here to there. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Chamoquemas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was removing content that was part of a long standing issue with the Hugo Chavez page that many people have commented on, as there is speculation that people are actually actively managing it. When I first saw it I couldn't believe wiki would ever allow it, but given how aggressively the 'managers' of his sites watch them, and why I am now blocked, I see why it happens. Someone with a unique email and a literal other person, chamoquefino was also blocked today, merely for being within the same IP range as myself. This is not the same user, computer, email, none of it. The 'valid sources' of information you speak of are a single foil trash site, established to merely cite content that is totally incorrect. I found numerous links all from venezuelanalysis.com that make no sense. For instance, look at venezualanalysis.com's wiki page link to this ridiculous lonely planet citation that 'Venezuelanalysis.com was the best source of information", yet when you click on the link, you find nothing of the kind. It's not even a lonelyplanet.com link, instead you find a link-back again to a venezuelanalysis.com article actually bashing lonelyplanet's viewpoints regarding the crime levels of venezuela. There were in sum 19 link backs to this site which is not remotely accredited as a news organization, and is actually provided bandwidth from the biggest socialist coalition in Venezuela. The page is a tragedy, and it has to be cleaned up. Why don't you read the talk page on Chavez, and watch all the quality content slowly being eroded systematically by a team of editors. I'm not a professional wiki writer, I don't play it well at all, as you can see by this ban. But if you look at the Chavez talk page, you will see systematic erosion of anything encyclopedic, and anything negative regarding his social policies, eroded (Guardian and NYT articles removed) to place articles from "Venezuelanalysis.com
Decline reason:
As for "lonely planet citation that 'Venezuelanalysis.com was the best source of information", yet when you click on the link, you find nothing of the kind" - I just clicked on the link, just now, and it quite clearly says "To keep track of the country's current political and economic affairs, the best English-language news website is www.venezualanalysis.com".
Finally, how did you happen to notice User:Chamoquefino being blocked if it is not you or at least someone you know? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Chamoquemas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Lonely planet has no record of this on their site, the point was that foil site up, i.e. venezuelanalysis.com, can state anything, it can write that Mickey Mouse is alive and living in Atlanta, and cite it, that doesn't make it true. This is also a major infraction, as some of the editors on here are also watching hawkish-ly venezuelanalysis.com which could very well be funded by the Chavez government as its hosted (by prior edits with citations) by a socialist website covered in red (indicative of all the Chavez government sites), and would constitute a major conflict of interest, that would interest major news organizations. I am already preparing some of the Chavez article to be sent to NYT for research or admittance to it's journalism review department. Why don't you stop and read the literal comment by Jimbo Whales, which was overlooked in the talk page. Perhaps you should be heeding your own advice at this point. I emailed him as well here. Whether or not I know the user chamoquefino, which seems quite obvious that I do, your right as an administrator does not remotely extent to ask me personal questions regarding who I know outside of the internet realm or not. The fact, and your job as an admin, is only to differentiate accounts, which you have clearly failed here. If you want to escalate this I suggest you do so, because myself and chamoquefino are not the same user or computer, and whomever blocked this account has totally overstepped their rights as admins. Personally I hope someone like HuffPo brings to light what's going on here, because this page has been a black eye for wiki for a long time. I mean Jesus you had 18 link backs to venezuelanalysis.com, do you have any idea how much SEO (search engine optimization that generates?.
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It is being reported to Google as well as being sent to several news organizations. The readers are tired of letting two or three zealot editors control what is probably the most bias page in all of Wikipedia.
- I find it interesting that both you and User talk:LolChavista spell "Jimbo Whales" incorrectly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would ask the same of you and strangely another English writer rd232, as your syntax is very much the same, who shares the same zeal for this specific article. Seems quite strange you suddenly developed an interest in making the same edits as he did just yesterday.
- Get yourself unblocked and request an investigation, and I will be delighted to cooperate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and the Lonely Planet quote is in the book, and there is no requirement for references from books to be repeated on their authors' web sites. Besides, you are still arguing about the content dispute, which will not get you unblocked. What you need to do is address the behavior that got you blocked, and then once unblocked, discuss your content dispute on the article talk page and seek consensus for the changes you want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Quality journalism citations HAH: "Analyzing alternative Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen in a Hitotsubashi University publication calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela".[6]" I've never seen so much propaganda hilariously masquerading as encyclopedic or even journalistic content with nothing more than a WordPress account and 30 brain cells.
Dude have fun with your site and your edits, you're a joke, and a dangerous one at that.
Here it is one more time for you, in case any viewers or admins see this and find is as hilarious as a legit wiki page as I do
"Analyzing alternative Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen in a Hitotsubashi University publication calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela".[6]"
Then click on the link to go to Darrell's wordpress blog .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamoquemas (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 June 2012
- I don't know where you get this blog stuff from; the footnote link is to a PDF of an academic journal article. And even if the PDF of the article is hosted on the author's personal site (quite common, actually - self-archiving), that's not an issue. Rd232 talk 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Indefinite
editIn the light of your responses on this talk page, it seems clear that a temporary block is not going to change your behaviour - so I have upped it to indefinite. Any admin is welcome to unblock you without needing to consult me, if they are convinced that you will listen to what you are being told about the reasons for the block and adjust your behaviour accordingly. But I should further warn you that while blocked, you are allowed access to this talk page solely to contest your block and to work towards unblock, and that continuing the content dispute here is an abuse of that privilege - if you continue in the same vein you may end up losing the ability to edit even this page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You made 6 edits on this page in rapid succession and then decided to permaban a contributor. Your retaliatory hurt ego is about as transparent as the page in question.
Funny how I don't actually fall into the category vandalism, but that would work for you right, let's amend it for "Hurt ego of English guy"
accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism. public accounts (where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group); accounts with inappropriate usernames; bots operating without approval or outside their approval; accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.
Good job bro, you really showed me.
- I don't know who you think made 6 edits to the page, but it wasn't me. But yes, you carry on attacking me - that's sure to get you unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Something you said at some point made me think that you're worried about external links benefiting link targets with Wikipedia's page ranking juice. Just to be clear, all external links on Wikipedia use nofollow, so this is not much of an issue. See Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing#Nofollow_HTML_attribute. Rd232 talk 23:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)