User talk:Blade-of-the-South

Your submission at Articles for creation

Bill Le Page, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Bill Le Page, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charitable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will look at it, thanks --No-More-Religion (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:OS

I noticed the unintentional "outing" and if I wasn't so busy today I would have asked one of the oversighter team arbitrators to do it for you. Please go into the edit history of the page in question, find the edit difference containing the outing, copy its URL and then contact one of the oversight team here WP:OS (section Oversighters, top group), refer to the edit diff and ask him to clear it for you. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC) OK thanks will do it later tonight --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Humus

I recently looked at AA site and all my talk with you seems deleted. I can't even pull up by 'BabaisLove' stuff. You seem to have modified, edited and censored much of the talk suggestions I sent you, so that even what I suggested isn't complete! I also see you are adding various refs to support your angle, but I can't see how you jump to some of your conclusions from those refs (I know and have read every document you have quoted here - and much more). Finally, I had thought we agreed the whole point of an AA article was to say (for Baba's sake) something positive and uplifting about His place for the numerous outsiders who read this instead of dwelling on our human error? What will they think of Baba if they read all this? Is the Abode only the sum of our mistakes - nothing more? I had prepared a fully referenced article for you to look at but I see no point, as I don't see any openness or willness to work together here. Good luck and goodbye. RayCK 22:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@ re openness and willingness, its takes two to do this, but you have been absent from AA talk since the 24th March. BTW I moved this post of yours to the bottom. New posts are always last on the page, like reading. I have not modified any talk page on Avatars Abode. Please dont make accusations without checking first if they are true. Check the history on the talk page please. Wikipedia takes some learning, but assume good faith first is the rule. I dont know what you mean by 'I can't even pull up by 'BabaisLove' stuff.' what do you mean? What stuff? I think you are confused with the long posts on your own talk page. Anyway the place for this talk is on the AA talk page. I will reply there BTW sign off with signature icon HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity

Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)

Thank You Blade-of-the South 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong

Have a read of a couple of my articles, like this http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/06/lance-armstrongs-business-links-a-flowchart-by-dimspace/ which is the most in depth evidence of LA's corruption you will find. Or this http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/ which was widely accepted as totally dispelling the "tested 500 times" argument and became even more accepted following the UCI's admission that they tested armstrong 215 times. I am far from an Armstrong apologist, totally the opposite. Ive been one of the voices fighting against him for the last 7-8 years. Hell, ive even been personally abused by his team. That said, im impartial on wiki, and for the armstrong article to be accurate some pretty serious changes have to be made to create a balanced article that gives a total impression of the person. That may take a few months, and may involved taking a step or two backwards to start with before we get to the end. Dimspace (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good to know. I dislike cheats, but the scale of his offending when coupled with the hero thing is ground breaking. Lets nail him impartially Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Its amusing to get called an apologist on wikipedia when in other areas im viewed as one of the biggest fighters against him. Have a good read of the business links pdf, it will give you an idea of how he controlled US cycling, filtered money out of livestrong for himself et. When all said and done on wikipedia I want accuracy, and i have the advantage of knowing an incredible amount about armstrongs career, good and bad. In the end an article that starts of critically, does not have nearly as much impact as an article that says he did this, he did this, oh and by the way, it was all a lie. But above all it needs to be accurate, readable and well presented, or people simply wont read it. If you have twitter, you will find me there. Dimspace (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sign of the times (sighs) Tell you what, when you're ready, insert data and I will back you up Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Thom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Knight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for improving Christian O'Brien! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

World War Z. Jewish Zionist? Influence

Please re-read the talk page for the article. I never made such a claim, that was a bot autosigned comment by user:Leroy.heronn. I only made a comment about WP:OR, as you made unsourced claims and asked for comment. Interestingly enough, said user seems to no longer exist. BTW, thanks for the later addition of source information for your claim. From the brief look at a couple of articles, the claim is speculation. It could as easily be that the author was making a political commentary in the form of an elaborate barb, I'll have to read the rest once this task intensive video conversion is over.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Here's a direct link for your convenience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Syrian civil war, you may be blocked from editing. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Get a real problem troll Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Blade-of-the-South. You have new messages at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks.
Message added 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Blade-of-the-South. You have new messages at Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks.
Message added 05:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I assure you my intentions were good faith - the discussion seemed to have turned toxic and I wanted to encourage discussion in productive threads instead of focusing on each other. If you feel it is worthwhile to keep it open, go ahead. VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2013 Ghouta attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please note that the article is under 1RR restriction. Please consider discussing changes on the talk page before adding them to article, let alone revert-warring their removal. VQuakr (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

edit request

can you please remove "mafia state" from the putin article, meybe it will be a beginning to a serious discussion 83.180.195.202 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I will. Im wondering if you think I put it there? I didnt and am working slowly on riding the US POV, but getting resistance. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A Home-made Barnstar for you

		Home-Made Barnstar
		After following your latest efforts in the Syria conflict related articles, I wish to award you this Home-Made Barnstar for editing in difficult areas, for "thinking outside the box" and for doing it well IMHO. Hoverfish Talk 11:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL did you find this page, heres where the big battles are. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attacksBlade-of-the-South (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attacks

Sayerslle rightly pointed out that asking your opinion on hypotheticals is not the correct usage of the article talk page, so I am bringing the conversation here. The reason I ask is because I have the opinion that you mirror the Russian's official stance of steadfast, unsupported denial of all evidence. On the article talk page you did not answer my question - what is an example of hypothetical evidence that would convince you that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks? Perhaps you could also explain how your position is effectively different than the satirical one outlined here? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think rather what will come out first is evidence of Rebels doing the chemical attack, since its highly unlikely Assad Govt did it due to motivation / consequences I mentioned earlier. However these circumstances tier 1 plus one or more follow on tier 2 developments, would convince me.

Tier 1. Assad confesses or Russia says Syria did it or The USA becomes neutral in its efforts and lays out all its intel and Russia agrees with it.

Tier 2 Outside ME powers like S Arbaia, Qatar etc back right off and are cleared of supplying gas etc. Rebels fess up to their gas supplies. UN brokers peace. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

note a development. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-rebels-have-sarin-980/

A number of your criteria are not evidence of who perpetrated the attacks ("USA becomes neutral; Russia agrees with it"; UN brokers peace"), and others are unlikely to ever occur to your satisfaction ("S Arabia... cleared of supplying gas" - you cannot prove a negative). RT is not a reliable source, and neither is Maloof in this context (he has not had access to "classified sources" in 10 years). The chemical analysis of the sarin showed it was military-grade and not "homegrown." The quantities used in the attack were vast as well - hundreds of liters, compared with the two or three liters used in the largest sarin attack by a non-government entity in history. Do you really believe the preponderance of the evidence points anywhere but Assad? VQuakr (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your still pushing POV> there are sites who say Saudi A supplied sarin. Note I have always said four things. There is no conclusive evidence Assad did it. Two there is enough bits and pieces to draw an outline the Rebels have done it. Three, The idea that there is hard evidence Assad did it is being pushed and its POV. Four No one can write a NPOV that proves 'who' did it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi to both, my five cents on the issue, here rather, as it has nothing to do with improving the article. Ok, we have to go by citing sources, so we have the west side news reports and the east side press, and each one follows its diplomacy and politics and most possibly dirty motives. So we could say "according to this side so and so but that side says so and so". But many people who are not for either side, "know" that both sides keep playing dirty tricks and buying the press and directing public opinion. And Wikipedia should not display factual content that follows any "sold" side. How do we get there? I think the only way is where many suspect foul play, but none can prove it for sure, we should stick to "according to A this and according to B that", so that anyone, be he follower of A or B opinion or rejecting both A and B as false propaganda, can simply get the idea of what is going on by comparing the two reports. The truth may never come out. If a war breaks out, history will again be written by the winner. Bummer, but I don't see how we can change this. In any case I admire both of you for your efforts to improve the article. Hoverfish Talk 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"If a war breaks out"??? I disagree with much of what you have to say but thank you for the thoughts and compliment, Hoverfish. VQuakr (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, then let me put it in a clearer way: "If a war breaks out that involves MUCH more than the current civil war in Syria, etc". Of course you may disagree with all and everything of what I said, but even so, the article should state things in a NPOV. Hoverfish Talk 23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that properly attributing statements of fact to the generator of the statement is vital. I agree that WP:NPOV is mandatory. What I disagree with is statements such as "we may never know." We do not need to create a false sense of ambiguity in the article just because there are idealogues who will never, ever, admit that the evidence is clear. When the evidence points towards a perpetrator and all the other side has is unsupported contradiction, it would violate NPOV to claim that this is some big mystery. VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hoverfish I like your suggestion and will start doing it. It is a fact that for now we do not know for sure if its A or B who is right. Hence the goings on in the news etc. therefore its got nothing to do with 'create(ing) a false sense of ambiguity in the article just because there are idealogues' Its just simple NPOV. As for a wider conflict. It could well happen. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

VQuark, I did say, this isn't about improving the article. We are discussing here about our views and insights into the situation, hopefully to clear out our positions to each other, so we don't have to do this in the talk page of the article or end up using warning templates. So, NO, I am not suggesting a false sense of ambiguity in the article, I strongly oppose such an attitude. My remark was to communicate how I feel, and by this I imply that many others may feel the same. You suggest there might be an evidence that is "clear", but I say "clear enough for some to close the case". Such things CAN and do get staged in ways that make it appear clear as to "who did it". But I don't suggest we indulge in speculations in the article. However, to imply factually that it was the political head of the Syrian government who took this decision and gave the order to use a chemical weapon, at a moment when it would be the last thing this government would want to happen, is for me, and for many others, very hard to swallow. Hoverfish Talk 01:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)