User talk:Westbankfainting

Edit warring at Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls

Please be aware that you could have been sanctioned for breaking WP:1RR on this article. In your answer at AN3, you state "If you're worried about "reverts" that remove false information that skew articles, then it can't be helped." In your pursuit of the WP:TRUTH, please be aware that admins find it easier to enforce the revert rules than to figure out who is arguing more soundly from the sources. Your longevity on Wikipedia will be minimal if you continue to plunge ahead without convincing others. See the closure of WP:AN3#User:99.120.1.227 reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: Protected) for how to get the sourcing reviewed, for example at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed - I suspect you're just the messenger here. Either way, my "pursuit" is of an accurate, balanced article which is a subset of simple truth (not WP:TRUTH), though of course that real "truth" is complex. The "truth" presented by the other editor was quite bluntly a screed usingthis website to further a political agenda. There is no fair reviewer who would look at what i've done with that article and see it as anything but a vast improvement when it comes to research, accuracy, and fairness. On the other side there was an editor who repeatedly lied and distorted the contents of sources (even in the book from the vanity press) in such a way that "them" looked bad and "we" looked good or like unfairly maligned victims. That's what needs handling. The article as it stood was one big lie -- and he continued to reinsert false information until, apparently, I tripped over this rule. If that's where the priorities are at, yes, I won't be here very long. I was really only engaging this one issue to see if mature, quality work could be carried on here by people of sound editorial judgment. Not to worry, I won't suffer being asked to pretend my editorial judgment is equal to someone who made six errors of fact in his first three sentences very long. As a courtesy I explained precisely what I was doing on the talk page (and i think fairly irrefutably). Since it's been... crickets. I don't need help from some other page telling me that the sky is blue. That would be a demeaning waste of time.Westbankfainting (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your aspirations are wonderful, but they will capsize quickly if you have no interest in convincing 'fair reviewers.' I am concerned I'm already talking to a blank wall, so far as your attention is concerned. The 'lies' bit also appears to be a personal attack. I hope you're not shopping around for how to get blocked the quickest. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can the difference between the truth and a lie be determined? And if it can be, and you found an employee falsifying records at your workplace that go to the heart of your business, what should be done?Westbankfainting (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're the owner of the business, you make the rules. Here the community makes the rules, and it seems you don't want to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't seem the sort of community I will want to associate with for long.Westbankfainting (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but we did try. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wonderful project to create a huge free encyclopedia

Ed Johnston is really one of the good guys here, and his advice (basically to shed some impatience) is good advice. A lot of admins would just have sanctioned you but he tried to help you and the article too. Feel free to take this message off your talk page after you read it. I hope you will stick around to enjoy being part of a very idealistic project that has all kinds of flaws but also lots of good people working together. Even the people I get into content arguments with are usually very good people as well. betsythedevine (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if you were to stay at Wikipedia

I encourage you to stay with Wikipedia, and to take some time to learn about our procedures and social norms. Please be patient and understand that you can accomplish good things over time, but not over night. You have already helped improve this article, and can improve many others if you choose to stick around. Learn our policies and procedures, and pitch in. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nazi talking dogs

Hi Westbankfainting, this is just to let you know that I have undone your removal of content at Nazi talking dogs. Although you were correct insofar as The Sun had nothing on the subject, The Telegraph, which was also sourced, did. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? I removed nothing. I merely pointed out that the claim that the germans called this program the "Woofan SS" was false with a "dubious" tag and explained on the talk page. No source says that. I presume the problem is that this website is edited by many people whose grasp of written English is poor.

Sorry, I had opened the wrong user's window. Anyways, all unfriendliness aside the wording has been changed (the article now reads that it has been dubbed by the British press as the Wooffen SS). Sorry Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch your language

[1] I made no false claim in the article. I wrote it as I understood the source. Mistake? Maybe. A false claim? No!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know WHY you inserted false information. But false information you did indeed insert. To be honest, the whole article is dubious, built as it is on the work of one non-historian. But that's another issue. Even he didn't make that silly, silly claim.

Stop adding to the article's talk page personal attacks. It was suggested to drop the matter, so drop it, and drop it now, and, if you have nothing else to do, write an article on your own. Looks like your English is good enough for this.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you make a false claim that was only exposed when people like me investigated it? I'm sure there's a good reason.Westbankfainting (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Hi Westbankfainting,

I've noticed that you appear to edit almost exclusively regarding articles created by User:Mbz1, or to oppose her in some way. I'd like to draw your attention to WP:HOUND; I strongly encourage you to focus on editing articles, talk page, boards, and other areas of Wikipedia that have nothing whatsoever to do with Mbz1. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your account clearly exists for no purpose other than to harass another editor. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually fixing massive problems with your articles. I was correcting factual inaccuracies. I more or less rewrote a propaganda piece single-handedly into an acceptable and neutral article. And I have now constructively pointed out massive problems by an editor who caught my eye at "Did you Know" with the very poor "Nazi talking dog" story. You clearly were reached out to by an online pal (who I've discovered writing two error ridden and skewed articles in as many days)-and are now doing their bidding rather than focusing on improving some rather poor content. That is, you have actively harmed your websites mission with your actions. I was pretty sure this would be how it would go done, but fascinating nonetheless. Westbankfainting (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in as a user who has had some (not extensive) interaction with WBF on an article other than the one in question: a block is definitely necessary so he can cool his heels and knock off the personal attacks on Mbz1, but it's inaccurate and unfair to describe the account as being used only for harassment. The user has made constructive edits to several problem-ridden articles and I believe he will continue doing so if allowed. What this means, WBF, is that you'd do well to admit your wrong-doing (whatever another editor has been doing, the comments you made are nonetheless inappropriate) and commit to better interpersonal behavior in future. I would request, HJ Mitchell, that the block rationale be changed from "harassment-only account" to "personal attacks." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that Westbankfainting is not a harass-only account. WBF made personal attacks, yes, but also made very well thought out content improvements. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Even name of this account shows that he is making a WP:POINT; he did nothing but followed another editor; the account was created like that, and his response was hopeless [2]. Remember, this is the worst area of discretionary sanctions in the entire project. Other conflict areas are nothing compare to that.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You just weakened your argument by supplying the link connecting IP:99.120.1.227 with Westbankfainting. The user's IP edits are primarily about the 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic, not about harassing Mbz1. By his editing as IP:99.120.1.227 and then as Westbankfainting, that article was improved considerably. At no time did he attack Mbz1 as the IP editor, and the first score of edits as Westbankfainting were not at all directed at Mbz1. Only after going to the new article Nazi talking dogs (which was being discussed at DYK) and interacting with the article and with User:Crisco 1492 who started a user talk page discussion about the Nazi dogs did Westbankfainting have a run-in with Mbz1, accusing Mbz1 of not having good English skills (which is not exactly true) and of being a non-native English speaker (which is true.) The personal attack was unwarranted but mild, and should have resulted in a WQA entry, not the AN/I which was filed by Mbz1. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was an AN/I - the user seems to have been blocked not through the normal channels. Otherwise, yes, the user hasn't worked on many articles, but the proportion of ones that Mbz1 had previously worked on is far too low to say that he "did nothing but follow another editor" or even that that is most of what he did. How was this block made? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right you are: there was no incident filed by Mbz1 against this editor. I wonder how, without an incident filed, he came to be blocked? Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, editors can be blocked on sight for poor behavior in the I/P topic area, because it's so contentious. As I said, I'm not against a block for this user and I don't think HJ was wrong in making the block as he did - I just think a lot of the things people are saying about the user, which include the block rationale, are factually wrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on his behavior pattern, this is most probably an alternative account. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all too Kafkaesque for a grown person. No, I'm not banned or banished or a person "whose intelligent and thoughtful comments must be disappeared" (or the oddly more Orwellian "stricken through"). Not a single edit of mine (except kind descriptions of factual inaccuracies being spawned by "lack of English language ability"; if the English skills were in fact there, it was all pure malice by definition) has been identified as a problem. You can't find a single edit of mine that didn't improve the factual accuracy of this website or point out a real and ongoing problem (you may notice, Oh gentle casual observer, the absence of pointers to any offending changes i made from the "respect mah authoritah" wielders). But here we are. This is not a place for serious people. Not news. But confirmed for me. Don't trouble yourselves about me again. There are roving gangs of teenagers (and worse, post-teenage teenagers) and propagandists about. But pay them no mind. They are involved in the important work of banishing the competent, and enabling the incompetent (and the propagandizers). It's all so "The Sirens of Titan" (gentle readers, I recommend you find The Sun's coverage to understand that book. Don't read the actual book though. It might confuse you).Westbankfainting (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Your crack team of "encyclopedists" probably won't notice. You probably can remove the anti-neutrality complaint at the top of 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic now. And, no. You're not welcome. You can have the propagandists. The field is all there's. (Though I will always be fascinated as to how the article i spent the most time on was ignored when it was claimed that all my articles were intersecting with the work of different propagandist. The main focus had nothing to do with that propagandist. A true puzzle, that.)

Ah, shit. I can't help myself. If I understand "Hodja" (whose previous website id was "Biophys" and is currently working some kind of deal here [3] if I'm following along Ok) my edits had something to do with "the worst area of discretionary sanctions in the entire project. Other conflict areas are nothing compare (sic) to that." What is this area?Westbankfainting (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude, this is not going to help you. The sooner you admit you were out of line (which you were, notwithstanding the sins of others) and commit to doing better, the sooner you can get back to content editing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)