Templar98

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Julian Assange, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Ocaasi (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an open discussion on the talkpage. As this content has ben removed by multiple editors, work towards consensus there rather than edit warring.--Terrillja _talk 21:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An innocent man, already falsely accused and threatened on multiple occasions, deserves a lot better than this. Templar98 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding Wikipedia. It doesn't operate on right and wrong. It operates on reliable sources and facts. Whether or not someone is innocent is of no consequence here.--Terrillja _talk 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not - we're here to express the establishment view - an establishment that wants Assange dead.

Having falsely told us he risked lives over Afghanistan, the White House (also proved to have covered up at least 15.000 killings) has called Assange's release of the diplomatic cables "reckless and dangerous". That's in the lead, with no rebuttal, and it's obviously false as well. Assange/Wikileaks are not releasing anything, the newspapers are. Anything that would tend to excite sympathy (eg multiple and very public threats to kill him) is censored and an interview from the same people as aired tapes from Osama bin Laden has to come first in a short-list that seems to be 4 out of 5 unsympathetic. Templar98 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We cover both sides of the support and criticism. There is room for terrorist/death threat coverage, but it has to be appropriately sized and in the right place. Please drop the inflammatory tone and just discuss specific content proposals on the talk page. Ocaasi (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Business+Assange

Looking over the citations you added, I think they are more appropriate for the Wikileaks article. Have you added the content there? aprock (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As Assange entry is partially locked, I wanted to suggest this link http://www.tiny.lu/ziuho to you or other Wiki editors with access to Assange article. Perhaps you find this info worth adding to Assange entry. Thanks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.240.157 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism of Julian Assange

So, the article was deleted (not by me) but by another administrator who felt as several others did that the article was being used to advance a point or that the content was not worth a separate page. You have a position, but if you want to advance it you'll have to do it through the talk page of Julian Assange. You're really pushing your point of view, and I doubt you'll be able to see whether or not some of the things you want included can be included until you tone it down. When you view other people like the evil gatekeepers, it doesn't help. Really. People here are reasonable. Many of us admire Assange's mission, and balls. Slow down a bit, work on a draft, get feedback, read around through some of our policies. See if maybe you have some misunderstandings about what we do, or reconsider if there are some alternative approaches that make sense as well. Shoot me a question if you have one. Ocaasi (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to accept that any of the governing editors admire what Assange is doing when his bio seems to come from such a hostile point of view. I could understand the original deletion, since the material rather filled the page, however there's been a lot of funny business and deletions since, many of them appearing to be deliberately aggravating.

I thought it was a fine article when I'd finished with it and I don't understand objections from an editorial point of view. Yes, you could say I was making a certain point, but you could say the same or more about people who post lists of terrorist incidents - what's the point of this one if not to point a finger at the Irish? Hardly any of that one is even true! Templar98 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The making a point business is the root of the problem. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is our unofficial policy that just because there's a Wikipedia page out there with problem X (surely there is, with 3.5 million articles) doesn't mean we should repeat it. Areas like this are extremely controversial and conservatively edited while they are in the spotlight. You can't take deletions personally, because a standard approach on controversial articles is WP:BRD which says, be bold, then get reverted (deleted), then discuss it. Deletion can be almost standard for new content in situations like this where it wasn't proposed first on the talk page. Also, I don't see how you say this article is hostile. We cover both sides, the awards and praise as well as criticism and criminal/terrorist characterisations. It comes back to reliable sources.

Everyday I check out http://wlcentral.org and read from rawstory or truthout or indymedia or antiwar. Those sources are great, but they have an angle. You like their angle. I like their angle often. This encyclopedia can't have "that" angle. We are closer to 'the establishment' because reliable sources generally hew towards the middle. But we describe everything (or try to) from a neutral, detached perspective, where there is no "point" to be made. If you think an article is missing something, chances are it needs some more careful phrasing and a few pieces of content in the gaps, but not a drastic makeover. When you do that, it comes across like we're merely replacing one kind of incidental propaganda with another.

Also, also, don't forget where you are on the spectrum of sentiment towards Assange. From 0 to 100, you're probably a 97. Well, when someone reads this article, they shouldn't know that 97's wrote it. They shouldn't know the political stance of any of the writers, just that it seems to describe all significant sides. This is a tough article to break in to Wikipedia with. See if you still feel the same way after 6 months of editing in other areas, some of which aren't in the fierce spotlight. Seriously, the Assange article has probably been a top 10 article on the entire encyclopedia the past month. Scrutiny will be phenomenal. Learn somewhere there's less heat, or expect to run into some walls. I tried to make headway at Chiropractic without a full understanding of policies... not fun. Much misunderstanding, despite good intentions. Again, shoot me any questions. Ocaasi (talk)

This is the second time I've felt a need to say "deal with the issues not with the personalities". I don't believe you can point to a single word from me that supports Assange's activities. My interest is first in informing myself and secondly in documenting what's of interest about him and his web-site. About the only reason for you to be suspicious of me is that I may be unusually alert to the audience, this time consisting of Europeans, the people actually hosting and prosecuting him.

As to content, the article refers to a few of the smears and accusations against Assange, but it gives the impression that only 4 fairly sober and well-established US politicians were speaking like this. When in fact, the much bigger story (from anyone's perspective, surely, can't just be a European thing) is that there were a number of radio hosts and at least one famous felon doing it - exactly the kind of thing that kicked off the Rwanda massacres. (Wasn't JFK murdered after large numbers of mafioso said it would be a good thing to do?)

Even in one part of the New World, we know that this talk of extra-judicial sanctions was really very disturbing and very widely condemned, 60 profs write a letter condemning him.

In the Olde Worlde, if a German Sunday newspaper is to be believed, some portion of the public would "not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident, from one underground-rise on the tracks to fall or at one ‹cardiac infarct would die". Why can't I put that in? Or is that another of those unanswerable questions like "according to what rule"? Templar98 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't said "I support Assange" but the edits you've attempted to include have been solely directed at increasing the coverage (or, perhaps correcting the lack of coverage) about excessive backlash against him. So, I made an inference. The personality issue only has to deal with apparent issue-pushing, otherwise, I don't care what your politics are as long as they don't effect your point of view as a writer.

We can beef up the paragraph that discusses negative reactions, particularly death threats, but you have to keep it in context. Many people said what they did because they view Assange as a terrorist. They didn't necessarily advocate a hit (though some did); many meant that he should wind up in a US court and face penalties including death. Or that he should be treated like an enemy of war. I think most of that was hyperbole. And they each differed in context, some suggesting assassination, others capture, or a secret trial, or a regular trial.

The whole world is watching, and Assange is in no way going to wind up in an American prison (my personal opinion as an American). At the same time that you understand European media shock at these calls for his death, I understand American media bravado. We have lots of jackasses on TV who say things to support the red-meat republicans. It's bravado. No one--mostly no one--takes it seriously. If the CIA wanted Assange dead, he'd be dead. Sarah Palin's jocular grandstanding has nothing to do with it.

If 60 profs condemned calls for his death, that may be significant if it was reported by other sources. I mainly think it's about scale. There should be one solid paragraph about the death/terrorist, and one or two sentences max about Assange taking serious precautions and backlash against the threats. That might not seem like we're paying enough attention to DEATH THREATS, but it pretty much reflects how it's been covered by the average of reliable sources.

I won't comment again on your personal approach. I still think following community practices will help you, and I still think we're slightly under-reporting these issues but not to the extent you've suggested. Specific proposals should go to the article talk page so that others can weigh in (I have no special say). Even if you just want to include a sentence, make a talk page section, provide the source and some context, and then let others weigh in. People like to add reasonable additions, but they are very tempted to cut unreasonable additions. Just try and come at it from the other side, maybe. Ocaasi (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know you're doing your best, but when you say "The whole world is watching, and Assange is in no way going to wind up in an American prison (my personal opinion as an American)" a lot of people are bound to think you're imposing your opinions over what's in the reliable sources. One of which (Sonntag) quoted a German ex-intelligence officer that Assange could very easily meet an accident. I think it's likely that this view is widely held (it was easy enough to prove the widespread view that he was a terrorist and he should be killed)

Then you say: "At the same time that you understand European media shock at these calls for his death, I understand American media bravado" and you might as well be open about what's going on. None of the views of those actually involved with Assange (UK, Sweden or Australia) will be granted any place in the article. Templar98 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

break 1

I'm responding both here and on my talk page, to each separate convo. You should use your WP:WATCHLIST if you don't already, since it makes tracking discussions easier. Third paragraph, first sentence, "calls for his execution". It's right there. BAM! The rest of it is only a question of how many examples to give. We're an encyclopedia. The right answer if somewhere between 2 and 6. It's not 25. It's not all of them.

The German speculation is interesting, but it doesn't carry much weight because it is from a single source in a single newspaper. If you look around world media, though several sources mentioned calls for death in one form or another, very, very few (no others I'm aware of) extended that to "he'll die in an accident" or another CIA type offing. WP:UNDUE explains this. As I said yesterday, content is not important because of what it describes, but because of how seriously several reliable sources treat it. If all major newspapers publish information about baby snot, it's significant. If no reliable sources publish information about the end of the world happening tomorrow, we don't either. Everything inbetween is up to editorial discretion, which we try to inform with WP:NPOV. Have you read it yet, seriously?

Fair point about my personal opinions, but I don't think I'm censoring the article either. I've pushed for inclusion of several of your points (liddy, rush, terrorist/death paragraph). Others have found them excessive. I have to admit, having been around here for long enough, that it's partly because you've already established yourself as a content pusher. There's nothing this community struggles with more than POV. When you can show that you come at things reasonably and with intent to improve content not to achieve some point, people listen. They don't always agree but they listen. When you start off with tirades that imply people have ulterior motives and that there are glaring errors that must be intentional, they pretty much write you off as a problem.

I tried to tell you this, but you think I'm trying to shut you up in some way and cut off your hands here. It's actually the opposite. As soon as you start appearing as a civil content interactor, one who is willing to see things both ways, to make cases that take into account all possible arguments and propose the one you think is most reasonable (without indicting others for seeing it differently), you'll have almost carte blanch to make good changes (not bad changes, but good ones). That's all going to sound very 'you must submit to us' in order to make headway, but this is a real community of people. We struggle with indignant, iconoclastic, confrontational editors (partly you, partly not) because they make discussion take sooo much longer. Have you taken time to understand the perspective of those who disagree with you? I've given your points serious consideration, agreed with many of them.

Forget briefly about how you want the article to read, and go back and consider the variety of arguments made. Maybe you've missed something. Yes, people have missed your points too. I'm trying to tell you how for that not to happen. Being 'right' is so trivial here. You have to be trusted, reasonable, balanced, fair, and persuasive, open to other opinions, serious about sourcing, committed to neutrality, etc. The currency that works here is in the intangibles, and since you've already got a killer grasp of doing research, all you need is a bit of the balancing. I commented on you again, sorry. I'm sure you'd rather I just take your side in a content dispute, which I can too, but it's very apparent to me that you wouldn't have encountered much resistance to at least 50% of your recommendations if you'd approached it differently. Which means I already think you're half right. Ocaasi (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is an established policy for the documenting of threats, see The Satanic Verses controversy. The central part of the content page looks like this:

3 Early reaction

• 3.1 Muslim anger
• 3.2 Explanation of different reactions

o 3.2.1 Muslim

o 3.2.2 Western mainstream

o 3.2.3 Western religious figures

4 Fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini

• 4.1 Rushdie's apology and reaction

o 4.1.1 Rushdie's apology

o 4.1.2 Refusal of Rushdie's apology

• 4.2 Support for Khomeini's fatwa
• 4.3 Criticism of Khomeini's fatwa

o 4.3.1 On Islamic grounds

o 4.3.2 Questions of political motivation

o 4.3.3 Questions of personal motivation

• 4.4 Attempts to revoke the fatwa

5 Social and political fallout

• 5.1 Heightened tensions
• 5.2 Book sales
• 5.3 Intimidation
• 5.4 Rushdie

I would expect Assange's sub-page to follow a somewhat similar pattern - am I wrong? Templar98 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) <-- means outdent, and that we can stop typing : 's for a bit. For one, I'm not an administrator, just so you know. I'm have been around a busy year, but just one.

That article looks like a better template for your idea.

The major policy issue is WP:UNDUE, are you simply giving too much weight to this topic compared to what is warranted, and already covered in the main article? That's the question, how much attention to give? Our standard answer is, whatever is proportional to the sources.

For thought, ask someone about who Rushdie is, and many people know of him solely because of the fatwa. That was a huge aspect of his fame. The issue is "the controversy": it was a Big Deal when the fatwa came out. There was enormous attention paid to it specifically. It specifically had major repercussions and reactions. That was the story.

Calls for Assange's execution have been a blip in the Cablegate news reaction, one which we've already described in some detail. You're trying to given it more prominence where sources have only weighed in a little. Death threats against Assange are a) a relatively minor part of his notability; b) a relatively recent development; c) already covered in the main article; and d) not as big a deal in the eyes of the media as you personally think they are.

And if I can speculate, I get it, you don't want him to die, you think these threats are heinous. That's a mission. We don't do mission. You're on the border of a gray area, because you're trying to anticipate (or prevent) (or expose) real world actions, which encyclopedias don't do, you're trying to publicize (make more prominent than sources have made it) a particular aspect of events, and you're doing it to bring justice to someone's situation, which is a sympathy we don't have the power to take.

I'm not the arbiter here, so you can try to mimic that article, and I can set up a page for you to do it in your userspace. I'd also really recommend going through articles for creation and seeing if there's support. I weighted in at the AN/I discussion as well. Ocaasi (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help - one question I have is - what tools are people using to discover what's going on? Not just the watchlist, for sure. Is it an admin thing?

I've looked at WP:NPOV and it reads almost exactly as I expected it to do. WP:UNDUE is trickier, but I'd suggest these death threats have had quite a lot of publicity, and a considerable effect on public perception - just look at the effect of one of them in Canada. I suspect that, if I'd not been slapped about like this, I'd have gone looking for death threats, precautions, risk of accident etc etc and I'd come up with quite a lot. Templar98 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My watchlist has 500 pages on it, including all of the WP:NOTICEBOARDs, any page I've ever edited, and any user I've ever talked to. Many editors have thousands of pages under. It's not that heavy, though, there are a few places where things are discussed, and you're no doubt at a disadvantage for not knowing where. Basically, we have four/five main content WP:Policies, and each one has a noticeboard. So issues about neutrality are WP:NPOV and discussed at WP:NPOVN. Issues about sources WP:RS which is a subset of WP:VERIFIABILITY are discussed at WP:RSN. Discussions about original research or synthesis of sources are under WP:NOR and discussed at WP:NORN. Admin issues are at WP:ANI which was where you posted, and the correct place. I also watch WP:BLPN which is the noticeboard for any biography of a living person WP:BLP. I recommend you look at my talk page links, where I've collected stuff like this. Particularly useful for you would be the WP:Quick directory or WP:Department_directory. Also, you can ask about questions at the WP:HELPDESK or through any editor. We want to help, as long as you want to learn. And you obviously do, but I'm not sure your mission is yet complete.

I'd also recommend installing JavaScript userscripts in your .js userpage. They're basically tools that make editing easier. In your preferences, you have to do some thing to make editing efficient. Check out my talk page, I'm going to lay it out there. Shoot me any questions.Ocaasi (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I had the impression there was a swarming effect that the watchlist would never achieve, but then a lot of people edit much quicker than me. Do people have two screens, one open at a different window?

Also, is it possible to open, say, all the windows at that page of NOTICEBOARDS?

Some of what you're talking about I'll read up on your talk page! Templar98 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The swarming effect is a combination of watchlists, article talk pages, and noticeboards. There was a thread at WP:BLPN called Wikipedia:BLPN#Criticism_of_Julian_Assange and you should have been notified about it. Sorry you weren't. I even mentioned your name, but didn't notify you which was not good practice. I think that's where the swarm came from. Everyone watches the noticeboards. Ocaasi (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is still going at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Julian_Assange, if you want to weigh in, or just follow. Nothing really up in the air, but different opinions and claims, some related to you... Ocaasi (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

break 2

Two small things. One is an essay on advocacy, WP:ADVOCACY. You've denied it, and I'm not indicting you by posting the link. I just think it has some useful distinctions about where the lines are between finding balance in an article, including or removing sourced content, etc. and doing that to achieve some ulterior motive (which, fairly, is often seen as countering someone else's ulterior motive). It's lots of gray area, and this essay is just another way to parse it. Also, essays on Wikipedia are not worth salt. Policies are broad and generally binding, guidelines too but somewhat less and in more specific circumstances. Essays are just collections of opinion, though some of them take on a canonical acceptance.

Also, regarding the 'swarm' effect, I forgot to mention that many editors simply watchlist other editors, especially the experienced, authoritative, prolific ones. So I can see what people are involved in elsewhere just by following my watchlist. I started doing this by picking people I found insightful, and gradually added people who I thought were problematic or contrary in style, and finally people who are just highly active, interesting, and well networked. Ocaasi (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you've shown me as regards policies are all that educational - and it doesn't look as if they control anything anyway - the SPEEDY delete was plainly wrong, it's not going to be reversed, but nobody can comment because they can't see what was in the article.

WP:ADVOCACY just says "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and the neutral point of view. ... Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work. - precisely what I'd have expected and very little danger of me breaching it.

Meanwhile, the more I look at it, the more obvious it is to me that an article on Assange needs to be thoroughly documenting either the danger, or the threats, of decades-long incarceration and death. That's what would happen if it was a Russian journalist liable to fall into the hands of the USSR. US and UK papers appear to agree that the threats against Assange are the single most notable part, they make a fair old thing of it (Bradley is threatened with 52 years). The German paper speaks of assassination. The threats of retaliation (whether against him as a journalist or a traitor) are probably a much bigger story than anything yet to come out of Cablegate. Heard on the radio that it's actually the damage to the Bank of America that's really driving the actions of the US now (or was it a web-site or the newspaper, I've forgotten, no reference on this one for the moment). Bank of America is barely mentioned in the article, the threats Assange have made against it left out completely! Templar98 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't really say enough that I'm not in opposition to your content additions per se, only particular excesses or specific misunderstandings. So, two issues I still see: tables are not appropriate for most articles, since they are merely lists and that is typically a sign that summary has not taken place; encyclopedias (even virtual ones) place some value in brevity and synopsis (see WP:PAPER for some commentary on that.). Now that doesn't really address the possibility of having separate articles for sub-topics--the relevant policy there is WP:FORK or WP:POVFORK, which are about separating content that gives a fundamentally different impression from the main article. These are somewhat in tension, because something that shouldn't be included because of length or WP:UNDUE reasons may not be a length issue in its own article, but could still give the impression that some point is being advocated by the article.

If you don't believe me, consider an article called, "People who think Assange is promiscusous" or "People who think Assange is a vengeful nerd" or "People who think Assange is working for the CIA". If each of those got separate treatment it would lead to a balkanization of content. Also, I know they're not equal examples, but why... encyclopedic relevance is what it comes down to. Obviously must make some editorial decisions both what to include and how much of it. You've come down with the opinion that all calls to treat Assange as a terrorist or to prosecute him or seek the death penalty or assassinate him are notable. I would argue that summarizing that all of these have occurred is required, but not listing the individual offences. This is not a matter of POV, but a matter of what encyclopedias do, which again, involves useful, backwards looking condensation of events and ideas.

As for 'the danger', I think the issue is one of speculation. Encyclopedias look in the past at what has happened, not what those events portend or or suggest or warrant going forward. We really try to stay on the dull side of the cutting edge, because it's just not clear what is relevant yet until it gets processed by the media/academia/sources. There's also the constant temptation to intervene or affect the trajectory of events by bringing light to one aspect over another. Same thing with Bank of America. It's all speculative, so we don't do much with it until it drops. We're supposed to be somewhat behind the ball. We're supposed to be the source people use to learn about this years after it happened, even if we want to be the source people can use today as well. On that note, you really should check out Wikinews as well, which is part of the overarching organization (though a smaller part) and has not restrictions on original research. I bet you could publish an article focusing only on quotes, threats, and more speculative aspects.

I would encourage you to keep making the case for individual additions, but not the whole table, for a sentence here and there about Assange response to threats. I know you're learning quickly and obviously pick up on things. The things you didn't picked up on, like why "business mccarthyism" is not a good fit for a title or why a very large table about one kind of reaction to a person in a specific context are not a good fit for a bio--that's reflective of some difference of approaches between you and many who edit here more often. It's partly just what working on multiple contentious issues does: you learn to anticipate compromise and not waste time with proposals that are likely to attract broad opposition--because the WP:CONSENSUS approach we use here requires us to generally deal with opposition explicitly, and that is very costly time-wise. Does that lead to some conservativeness or timidity, maybe... but I think it is more about knowing which side of too much or too little to approach things from and which path will reach a good outcome with least resistance. It's more efficient.

Also, finally, trying to make these changes while 'the heat is on' means scrutiny is much higher and debate costs are much higher. It also makes me wonder what the rush is. I think the rush is that you think Assange could actually be killed, and I think it's that's part of the issue. You think these quotes are so dangerous, but sources have taken them particularly seriously. (Despite Assange taking some precautions and one statement about car accidents). Either way, shockingly, it's not our job to prevent his assassination, even if we could; and it's not our job to publicize opinions against him in excess of the attention they get in sources relative to the subject as a whole.

So, you can keep pushing for massive inclusion at Julian Assange (which i think will fail), you can push for specific content inclusion (which i think will succeed if done well), you can draft a separate Assange death threats article and see how that fares, you can put some of this in Cablegate and [[Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak |Reactions to Cablegate]articles]. Plenty of options, and I see about 40-60% of your additions making sense. It's the last half that's going to cause a variety of problems, because they are forward looking, or receiving undue focus, or not neutral. Sorry, this is long. Ocaasi (talk)

As far as I can see, the big story at the moment, the part that might make people most want to read up on Assange's bio, is not cablegate but the danger that Assange is in. Now, I'll grant you that the importance of this part of the documentation is critically dependent on whether the US does stop Assange or not, but it does appear there's a secret Grand Jury in sitting, there's an attempt to link Assange to Manning in a conspiracy, Twitter is being sub-poenad and your claim that the US will not get their hands on Assange looks like just your opinion. Templar98 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Death penalty prosecutions, assassinations, secret grand juries, Manning rolling over (or coerced) into conspiracy charges, Twitter subpoenas ...it's all juicy but also almost all speculative or news (as in WP:NOTNEWS); it's too recent or hasn't even happened at all yet. My opinion is of course just an opinion, but I've watched our American security state through the Patriot Act and Bush, Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, etc. I know Obama is not an idiot, and a trial of Assange for espionage in the U.S. would anger the techno liberal and libertarian base. You might have outrage at American military muscle and abuses of power, Pirate Parties and Chaos Computing Clubs, but the US has just as strong if not stronger a tradition of muckraking, political dissent, free speech, napster, silicon valley, Daniel Ellsberg, the EFF, Glenn Greenwald and a hundred thousand digitally native political activists who would be up in arms if our government touched Assange. I appreciate your caution and skepticism, but Obama is politically savvy enough to know that prosecuting Assange would cross a line. Don't get me wrong, Manning is fucked, the CIA will be following Assange until he quits, 4chan and Anonymous are being infiltrated as we speak. All true. This one won't happen in the light of day, though. Besides, what is gained from Assange's death or even prosecution?? He then becomes a martyr, a rallying cry for activists everywhere. Now he's just a slimy looking nerd in a London mansion, smeared by ridiculous or irrelevant sex allegations. They'll try and marginalize him rather than make an example. Again, my opinion. Ocaasi (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You've posted your opinion, I'll post mine. I was never really a supporter of Assange, except as an innnocent victim of state injustice. The more I look into it, the less of a supporter I become. In fact I worry that Assange stands to become the world's most successful blackmailer. If he damages Bank of America (as he thinks he can) and still remains at liberty, then he's practically unstoppable and will end up very, very wealthy indeed. Templar98 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I hate victimization through state injustice as well. I may be naive, but I never saw Assange after wealth. I genuinely think his idea of glory is being able to take down whatever corrupt organization exists wherever it exists, but that he doesn't care much for money if he could do that. BTW, have you watched WikiRebels http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPglX8Bl3Dc ? Ocaasi (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

hispanosuiza commentary

Collapsed very long thread

I sure hope i'm not duplicating here my long intended post to you sir (i, being hispanosuiza) here i cut and paste it all, again. I lost a thread where i believe you were responding to (hispanosuiza) me; i invite some dialog, between you and me, now. This long reply to the supposed "you" evolved-- into a kind of ranting manifesto, so in reviewing it from its top, here i ask your forebearance for its heated tones, and forward chattiness at times. With the device of pleading for your indulgence-- recalling that avuncular-seeming caution oft used by the 'gang' on the discussion pages--whenever they trump the tyro, they advise: "try coming at it from the Other side" --hmmm, the "other" side. hits a sore spot, don't it!? And so to help my own case, May i ask you to play along with me, be a partner to my theatricks, rhetorical the while, and let my vigorous assertions seem those of The Hypothetical Contributor. Trying to get back to that lost thread, of yours, wand'ring around in a talk 'room'(?) i did detect your pheramone (i use this synechdoche--unless you'll have it a metonymy-- because i want to imply a bizarre 'socialized' sub-sect, that i begin to smell, from an "Ur-committee" knowing and enforcing "all rules" WikiPedian, when i get in to the Discussion pages.) Ocaasi, whom i replied to at length, has duly chastened me, with a pointed head-zup, viz.: Wikileaks is an "encyclopedia" cut and dried, and no place for the "soul" of my kinds of contribution. Here i paste the emblem of what i suppose to be distinctly (no pun here) your own pheramone--your signature, wanly, only partially ideological, and writ small. It does conform to the tone of your note to me i believe. and i welcome that. You where "in here somewhere" and you were saying-- For instance, today in the Telegraph (not the Wikileak friendly Guardian, but their ideological opponents) it says "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has caused major embarrassment for both the Pentagon and US State Department, but his next target will be the private sector and an American bank in particular". From everything we've seen (and what Assange has said, resignations this time) this leak could be even more sensational than Cablegate. It's been semaphored ahead since October 2009 and it's breaking "early this year". So why's it not in there - because it's the Bank of America and Wikipedia establishment editors don't want them embarrassed? (Were you serious that a sub-article on "Life-threatening hostility towards Julian Assange" could have value? This story could run and run and there'd be all that useful material to turn into "The undoing and death of Julian Assange".) Templar98 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Templar98 will you cut out the crap about 'Wikipedia establishment editors'. The reason why speculation like this isn't in this article is (a) because it is speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL), and (b) it is more relevant to the WikiLeaks article than this one. Your endless droning on about 'censorship' isn't doing anything except getting up peoples noses. If you want anything included in the article, try to do it without making snide insinuations - you might get further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Deal with the issues not the personalities. Assange has been threatening a major US bank for 16 months now and the issue is not going to go away, in fact he's now threatening that it's about to break (with resignations, as we've not seen yet). That needs to be in the article. Other threats and the precautions that Assange is forced to take are also in the top UK press and belong in the article. None of the work will be wasted even if Assange's plans prove to be a flop. There is also no mention of the totally unprecedented refusal of the banking system to deal with an individual, what Assange has called "business McCarthyism". This article is not about Wikileaks, it's about Assange and I've discovered what happens if one tries to add material - it disappears. Completely disappears. Now deal with it. Templar98 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC) If you have reliable secondary sources which support Assange being "blacklisted" by the banks, that is probably worth considering for inclusion. aprock (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC) And I'd not be instantly reverted? Templar98 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC) now i have emphasized some feinting lines from your dialoging above. they hit, or touch upon, a couple of nails i keep trying to drive, if i understand your interests. but we could explore that only if you want to respond. i am not brief, in matters i think worth discussion. I hear right and left, the platitudinous phrase "this article is about Assange" always as a justification for censoring some particular that i do and would have believed was quintessentially "about Assange". it makes one wonder what (accepting the notion that wikipedia is an 'encyclopedia') would be the purpose or useful objectives of the Assange entry, if not to greatly note and correlate large available noteworthy FACTS, that have political meanings explicit and covert--it is precisely to the point of the Assange topic--call it biographical, it is a record of an active individual that is accreting in the present time, day to day nearly. You seem to be somewhat an editing insider, and know the ropes, how to work the maze, leading to some useful dialog and ultimately to significant contributions, and you seem thwarted often enough. I may profit by your further observations. Here i say, i am indifferent to the discussion-talk 'gang' (some obscure structural flow chart--oes it include an eminence gris--flickers vaguely perceptual) that i've called a cabal, a coterie of "group-think". My interest is in making legitimate FACTual contributions, that have political significance and relevance, with an end of seeing a record available to the theoretical wiki reader who may be served with information upon which she (being so moved) may ACT or respond, productively, other than entering a mill of endless disputations from wiki-insiders, that gang guarding the encyclopedic set of rules, which when inflicted on me as the excuse to eliminate my contributions, always seem to beg the question!!! ironically, this question: "in the generally unchallenged application (invocation, it would seem sometimes) of the arcane WP 'rules' (boilerplate unspecific, yet invoked as authoritative guidance, by the 'gang') isn't there a NPOV! kind of covert orthodoxy being given primacy, over real deliberations of "content" ?? The Talk pages, as have affected me, in my brief times needing to try to breathe there, have produced the impression of (a structure, i intuit vaguely) a cabal, those 'experts' whose discussions treat with a cavalier and casual consideration, whatever isn't immediately recognizable to them as Orthodox, institutionally OK, for having survived their straining it (the candidate contribution, or edit, that is) thru their WP rules machine (which they know inside and out, and only they operate its handles!). After all, it was headed to peremptory tossing-out! I am now going to make remarks that apply to a category of wikipage topics and entries--the category that is inherently political in nature, as distinct from wikipages that are entries and topics of the Sciences. The level of expertise and factual information on wikipages in this latter category i think is demonstrably of higher quality and validity than pages in the arena that is our concern here, in the Assange entry and topic. This structural management, i.e., admissibility of content, on certain topics, being determined by fallible critics and judges, many of whom appear to be actually quite unlearned, not to say ignorant, upon contemporary politicical history or theory, unacquainted generally with a grasp of current events, specially if you throw in "economics" as a dynamic concern (file under category 'globalization'), would seem to be a contrivance to ensure often censorial results. You could even say that the arbiters, the WP gang, are rather carrying off a "self-censoring" or editing, particularly if they are letting appear on the public wikipages only such vetted information as satisfies their WP rules and suchlike editorial protocols—as would make it, and keep it, antiseptic, QED. Wouldn't want an encyclopedia to morph into . . . something dangerous, more dangerous than ‘rules’ have contemplated? What!! thinking outside the Box?? Purge alarum, purge alarum!! whooot whooot whooot!! may i say, here, that “antiseptic is NOT what the Assange wikipage entry should be about. ergo, hmmm, long come WikiLeaks. that threat to certain covert and vested interests--it is formidable. Through resources uncensorable--by virtue of the present-day free, liberal Internet communication media--it is practicable to organize some larger community of interests, to empower these communities by dispelling largely believed myths, propaganda and secrecies devised, there is a history of this, going back Bernays projects in the 1920s, passing thru Howard Zinn's People's History accounts, and presently sustained in many of Noam Chomsky's works and activities . . . oh, by the way, have you an explanation why Chomsky doesn't appear as a person of Support, on the Assange site? of course Chomsky is cited several times on the WP article topic "WikiLeaks", . Noam Chomsky website. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20101130.htm. Retrieved 25 December 2010. i shall not pursue this line of thought at the moment. . . . if i may be of use to Wikipedia's enterprise, it will involve furthering or preserving of ends and principles that are consonant with explicitly stated goals of WikiLeaks. Mind you, this does NOT disquality me from equal rights, that any 'editor' has, to fair hearing and participation in the open project that Wikipedia claims to be. I embrace many modes, to subvert any skullduggery, sacred or profane, whose busy-ness depends upon the captivation of the popular community, ours, through secrecies . . . thanks, if you want to remark on any of my 'manifesto' . . . hispanosuiza, Hispanosuiza (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange

I have responded at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Julian_Assange. Apologies for not responding earlier to your messages on my talk page, which has been for personal off-wiki reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Templar98/Article_draft, and I posted at AN/I above. Ocaasi (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. Templar98 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

life in danger

Hi, Assange is going around without protection, speaking in public without bullet proof vest, if you want to assert his life is in danger and you think that danger is notable then please open a discussion on the talkpage and seek support and consensus for your desired addition. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asserting anything - I'm reporting what's in the reliable sources - and I've done it from material in the UK Telegraph, sources that are ideologically completely opposed to Assange's allies at the UK Guardian. I've not had an opportunity to check, but I'll take it you've reverted me, which is the same thing that's previously done to careful and accurate and NPOV additions. Templar98 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Templar the issue is not WP:V which covers your indeed well-sourced entries, or even WP:NPOV in the specific sense, since your prose is even-handed. The issue is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. The subject needs to be given attention which is proportionate to the attention from reliable sources. Very few reliable sources are taking Assange's safety seriously. It's also a very recent phenomenon, and we're not here to catalog those in depth. We have to wait a few weeks for Assange's safety to either be compromised or maintained. That might sound inadequate to you, but, we're not here to save his life, or even to document his fears about what is going to happen next. All of that fits at Wikinews better than here. Ocaasi (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Assange's safety has been badly compromised already. Most disturbingly, Sweden has failed to protect "innocent" people from the US before, as documented in the "Skeleton Defense" his lawyers have felt forced to publish but can't be mentioned in Assange's article either. Meanwhile, I think I counted 8 occasions where prosecutors are quoted, mostly as if they were authoritative. Templar98 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

None of this is encyclopedic Templar. I agree with your politics. I fear for Assange's future. I support WikiLeaks. I support disclosures of classified information. I support shield laws for journalists. I support technological hacktivism to counter government censorship. La di da. We reflect sources, the ones with mainstream reputability, in proportion to their coverage. Once the world changes, Wikipedia will cover it. We don't push an edge or progressive or activist version of the world on events. We don't push 'the truth' if sources aren't making a case for that view of it. Once you separate that mission from our mission, editing here makes sense. Until then, it's a battle against the policy. The skeleton defense can get very basic coverage, but prosecutors' arguments shouldn't be getting much press either. We'll report on this case more once it's settled, or at least started! What you're telling me about Sweden is a personal opinion, an opinion not reflected in sources, an opinion which is being advanced to 'save Assange' from Sweden. None of that fits here. You're still making some good improvements, but I don't see these changes as within our scope. Ocaasi (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found all the occasions in the current article where the views of a prosecutor are mentioned:

1. The prosecutor said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness" ... judge warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years.[22] (This: a) was in Assange's defense, for POVs sake, and b) it deals with an absolutely ancient case where there is no spin going on. Recentism is the issue, and this one lacks it -Ocaasi, same in italics below)
2. ... US prosecutors are reportedly considering charges against Assange under several laws (That's a simple news report and we can/should have comparable very short denials from Assange that he has not anything wrong)
3. ... "querying the way charges were laid, investigated and dropped, only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor."[112][117][118][119][120] (this is procedural and doesn't advance a case, and could probably be dropped for excess detail)
4. ... Within hours, Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne reviewed the case and dropped the rape investigation37][138] (this is procedural and doesn't advance a case)
5. ... Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[140] (this is procedural and does not advance a case. also, it's in Assange's favor)
6. ... The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution then reopened and expanded the investigation on 1 September. (this is procedural and doesn't advance a case)
7. ... 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant (procedural...case)
8. ... the High Court Judge rejected the prosecution's argument that he was a flight risk. (procedural... and judges are very different from lawyers, also in Assange's favor)
9. ... Swedish prosecutors have denied the case has anything to do with WikiLeaks.[148] (this is a good example, and we should either take it out or balance it... but we already DO balance it, by saying the case is an attempt to smear Assange's name and mission. See the Lead, last paragraph)

(and maybe at least one more, "the US DoJ issued a subpoena ordering Twitter to release information relating to Assange's account" - then there were the numerous calls for his prosecution, already stripped from the article, despite their considerable interest)

Compare that with the number of times the defense (or his lawyers) are mentioned:

References 5, 63, 98 and 99, none of which actually say anything on his guilt or innocence.

1. - and that's it, there does not seem to be a single quote from his lawyers or his defense (except Ellsburg). I don't think you can claim that "the "Local" quoted Assange on 27 Dec 2010 as saying that legal costs for the whistleblowing website and his own defence had reached £500,000." or "I don't want to write this book, but I have to. I have already spent £200,000 for legal costs" are quotes from his defense team.

Oh, stuff it, I've stopped checking all the way through, I don't think I should need to document to you the parlous nature of that article.

So I've been and done something else urgent, moving some of what's under "Public Appearances" to the quaintly named "Criticism" (what should be entitled "Threats and accusations"). What are the chances that will be reverted immediately and completely, despite the importance of the clean up and it's inoffensive nature, adding nothing whatsoever?

I've also found another obvious error, picked up by a bot and labelled for us to see. Assange noted (at the ADLE) that internet archives are being wiped, using an example from the Guardian. However, the very reference we're pointing to has been wiped, leaving a dead link! Are you going to tell me that your sole interest is to improve the article? Templar98 (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've interspersed my responses within your list above. Big differences here. It's very different to make factual statements about procedures than to let prosecutors and defense attorneys make their case on our page. One says simple facts like 'the charges were dropped', while the other makes arguments like 'we're innocent and being smeared'. Your list mixes the two and only the latter are a problem. You can't merely search for every mention of the word 'prosecutor' and cite an imbalance. Context and application matter.

As for there being other errors at the article, I can't say I appreciate your insinuation that I'm on some campaign against you or against Asssange. I was busy improving the article in a variety of ways, and part of my energy at Assange has been taken over by dealing with situations like this where editors want to add information which is too recent or partisan, to turn this article into a defense for Assange or a news blotter.

You're doing a good job keeping that section fair but you still don't understand the policies that are at play. There are some excesses in the other direction, but I'm not trying to make the article equally wrong in both directions. Ocaasi (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations for going through that lot and trying to address the issues. I'm not really convinced but it's kinda late to make sense of it. I just think mud sticks. My last change wasn't reverted, which is a huge improvement - but then I wasn't adding anything I'd researched as on previous occasions. Templar98 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I did revert your move from Public Appearances to the criticism section. The criticism section is for negative views of Assange, it's not for 'holy shit look how many powerful people want him dead' and 'look how scared Assange is he's going to be assassinated'. We have described the U.S. reaction clearly, that the Justice department raised the possibility of prosecution for espionage or conspiracy charges. We also cover the media in which there has been a range views from 'we should just kill him' to 'he's a hero'. I think you're confusing the criticism section with the page you created that was then renamed and deleted. This is an actual criticism section, for critical views, not a 'let's catalog statements that we construe as threatening and showcase the US for being a tyrant. Some of the details you want to add belong, but not in the criticism section, except perhaps to say that. A lot of what you're doing is classic 'synthesis', which believe it or not, we can't do here. We can't take the fact that Sarah Palin wants Assange dead, and Assange is afraid to go to the US, and he says he's taken measures to protect his safety, and he's gotten death threats, and we have a CIA, and a newspaper commentary thinks he'll be in a mysterious car accident, and the U.S. has ties with Sweden, and extradition could lead Assange to Guantanamo to never be seen again... We can't connect these dots; we can't make this case. You're tying together a story that doesn't exist much outside of your own analysis. It may turn out to be right, and Assange might wind up dead or imprisoned. But this encyclopedia is only here to catalog what happens, not to raise anyone's outrage so that they can 'do something' about it.

Also, the distinction about the timeline between Manning's arrest and the cablegate leaks seems superficial. Assange has been in the sights of US officials since the Afghan war logs, the helicopter video, etc. We didn't put the criticisms of Assange in the Cablegate section. If you want to add criticisms from US officials dating to before Cablegate, go for it. They will be similar in topic, although they might introduce a more rounded view. If you do, remember that criticism is just a summary of what people don't like about his actions; it's not a showcase.

How about this: "Media and political commentary about Assange, especially after the US diplomatic cables were released has included suggestions that he be treated like a terrorist, prosecuted for espionage, conspiracy, or treason, be imprisoned, or just be targeted for assassination. Although some of the commentary was written off as bluster, Assange is indeed being investigated by the US Justice Department, and has taken some of the public commentary--in addition to death threats he has privately received--as indicators of danger to his safety and freedom. He has not traveled to the U.S. since [date] and is worried that extradition could lead him to imprisonment or even a death penalty prosecution. He has also been taking additional precautions to safeguard himself from harm."

Try that on the talk page and see what happens. It's a nice summary, and it's not advancing an agenda or an index of offenses. Ocaasi (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be concerned that your proposed inclusion was original research. It's possible mine was too, but at least it was planned to accurately define the sequence ie release of video, Manning arrest (May), Assange fails to turn up when expected (June) and threats start July. Then Cablegate is November, threats become widespread. Dates are almost the only thing that are inherently NPOV.

However, the real problem is that, unlike Rushdie or Muslim apostates, we're not allowed to have a section on "Smears, threats and calls for assassination", which Assange's bio urgently needs. Then we could see the connection between the danger and his response, instead of stupidly hiving the latter off to a different section ("Public Appearances") where a central part of the real story becomes a personal attack on him for unreliability. Templar98 (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Biden

• - Biden - hi Templar, just a note if there is no citable connection between the shooting gesture and assange would you please also remove it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Templar98/Article_draft , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you have not removed this, as I have replied on my talkpage, policy and guidelines apply just as much to your userspace article as anywhere else on wikipedia - the comment you have there still clearly misrepresents a living persons comments - it has been clearly shown on the talkpage of the Assange article that there is no connection to Assange and the pic, so I ask you again will you please remove it? Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that, on both these counts, truth trumps verifiability.

Can I take it you'll allow me to edit on that basis, and document both what the UK press is saying about the threats against Assange (which is the only thing I've been doing), and also those things that "everyone knows"?

Or we could stick to the rules - at least two sources say that Biden actually called Assange a high-tech terrorist. I accept the latter is not true and have never entered it into the article. I want to keep the reference to the shooting gesture (in my non-indexed userPage) because I suspect it links to other sources that paint various politicians as extremists. You'd not object if I did it to Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad - why are you objecting on behalf of a US-politician, who so often boast of using guns and various kinds of gun-analogies? Templar98 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As has been clearly stated on the talkpage of Assange - the picture has no connection to Bidens comments regarding Assange - I am not looking at Chavez and whoever and in regards to this those articles are irrelevent, to associate the picture to the comment is clearly false and I don't think you object to that do you? If you agree then just remove it, keep it wherever you like but don't associate it to his comments about Assange - I would much rather you saw sense about this and just move it, I won't ask again, this is three times now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'll help me battle for truth over lies at other articles then I'd be pleased to comply. How about this reversion from a few minutes ago - my source is a mirror of the original article but it's totally unsurprising and it's removal smacks of POV and dishonesty. Templar98 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well although the source is not widely used it is in a few article and perhaps should,'t be rejected out of hand - the WP:RSN is the place to go if your citations supporting your additions are questioned. Another thing you have seen me do and I recommend it to you in that situation - take the removed addition to the talkpage with the citation and open a discussion as to what is wrong with it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• - I have removed it, and to be honest I am disappointed you didn't do it yourself - it was as you knew a false representation of the living persons comments - please don't replace it now that you know it is such a false presentation. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Templar98 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus‎

Please consider reverting your last edit to the article. Like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, 1948 Palestinian exodus‎ is subject to a 1RR restriction, and I think you just made a second revert. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted myself, but that's a pretty bizarre request from you, asking me to replace a lie. Why didn't you take it out and put it back in again?

Was it even a revert, it had nothing to do with the improvement I made earlier - are these reverts that mustn't be repeated or are we forbidden to make any 2nd edit on the same day? Templar98 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We can make two edits, but that sentence has been very contentious and this was your second change to it. I don't like to see editors have to defend themselves because somebody chooses to Wikilawyer and report them to the edit-warring noticeboard. There are enough editors around that somebody else will take care of it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit snippy of me. After a moment's thought I realised I should have been thanking you for the warning. I'll do so now. Is it really true I cannot even apply an edit to another part of the same article without risking a complaint? What are the implications of being accused of being Sol Goldstone or don't I really want to know? Templar98 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem.

You should read this. Then go to the sockpuppet investigation page and, after reading the messages there, choose whether and how to respond. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If I responded to what BrewCrewer was saying, I'd suggest he's being malicious, perhaps because I've told him off for trying to insist a plagiarist is a source suitable to reference in articles, it's here. I'm hoping everyone can see this for themselves. Templar98 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for no reason

I don't know what this is about and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about it, but I've been falsely accused of being someone else.

Twice accused, in fact, see here where I'm linked to other people I've never heard of. Templar98 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate sockpuppets. But I thought I would find an explanation here as to why you were suspected of sockpuppetry. Not finding any I asked the admin for a fuller explanation. If you aren't a sockpuppet I hope that helps.

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet over half a dozen times -- all nonsense of course. Geo Swan (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)