Csp0316

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Csp0316, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Csp0316! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Csp0316 I wanted to see if you had maybe forgotten to log in during some of your recent edits on Conspiracy theory. Special:Contributions/68.32.136.75 seems to be editing just after you or just before you, but you both never seem to be editing the article at the same time. I know you have not logged in one time in the past using Special:Contributions/64.134.41.92 which you apologized for, I know we all make mistakes like that sometimes and thought it may just have happened again. If this was you just forgetting to log in please try to remember to log in before making edits. VViking_TalkEdits 12:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Conspiracy theory

Please stop trying to force your edits into the article. You've got multiple editors disagreeing with your changes. You need to used the article talk page and get consensus before making the change. Also, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's 3 revert policy. Please read that page carefully as you're close to breaching it, if you haven't already done so. Basically, if you make more than 3 reverts to a page in a 24 hour period (and you have done so 3 times today), you generally end up being blocked. Please consider this your warning on the reverts and a pointed suggestion to use the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors are trying to delete an entire section that has been on the page for many years rather than just the recently added content that they disagree with, and it borders on vandalism. I am happy to remove some or all of added content if any reason at all is given, but none has with regards to any specific items. All of the contested items have already either been deleted or modified.Csp0316 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The section has been contested as a whole. Repeatedly restoring it, when reverted by multiple contributors, is edit-warring. I suggest you self-revert, and restore the section, before action is taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you decided to ignore the talk page comments and continued to force your unsourced changes in. Obviously, you will continue to edit-war over this. You are well past the 3RR limit and have no signs of stopping. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's frankly absurd for you to say they are unsourced when they are matters of public record that could be sourced by thousands upon thousands of RSs, and are all well-sourced in their respective main articles. I'm hardly ignoring talk pages, I have participated more than anyone and you and other editors are carrying on monologues and not even addressing the content of my comments. Andy: the only who has contested it as a whole is you. Otherwise the section stood for years. Some editors have not checked and believe this is a new section, when in fact most of it has stood for years with no controversy or contesting. Csp0316 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Csp0316 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made major changes to the section and continue to make changes, but you are not allowing me time to do so. It is not appropriate to remove the entire section in the meantime when it is a major part of the article and not part of the controversy that is at hand.Csp0316 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't ignore the advice and comments everyone else gives you. I told you about the 3RR limit. I told you that you were past it. I told you to use the article talk page to discuss your edits. You ignored everything. Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to make changes and you're not allowing me even a single minute to do so. Only one editor opposes the entire section. The others only oppose certain items. I am trying to remove or correct those items. Many editors have contributed to this section over time and none have had a problem with it. It doesn't deserve to be removed entirely.Csp0316 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Most of us reject the entire list as it's currently being done. Your list is crap to be blunt. It's not sourced. Source it. Vet it better the first time. And since it's been objected to, use the article talk page, not the article itself as your scrapboard. You have consistently ignored ANY advice that doesn't fit exactly how you want to do things. That's not gonna fly to well. See WP:BRD. You been bold, and had the change reverted. Now discuss it on the talk page and get consensus on the talk page before re-adding it. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Name one item that's crap. I removed a dozen items that generated the most controversy. To say that MKUltra, Gladio, Northwoods are not bona fide conspiracies is laughable. They are the quintessential conspiracies. They were deathly secret and involved murdering innocent civilians. I'm not ignoring anything. I have responded to all specific criticisms and made major changes, and I am trying to preserve a section that has stood for years with zero controversy and a lot of collaboration from other editors that has suddenly come under siege in the last 24 hours.Csp0316 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. Let's go back in history and look at the proven conspiracy section, shall we? Right before you started editing - nope, no god-awful list here. Early December 2013, nope. No list. End of June 2013, still no god-awful list. January 2013, what do you know, still no list. So you're wrong about the "years" part. You're wrong about not ignoring the comments and concerns that have been raised. I think that's enough of my time that's been given to this crap for now. Ravensfire (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I reported you for 3RR since you passed three reverts and you are the one who has provoked this war. The section has been there for many months at least and has not been controversial. You say the list is god-awful, bunk, etc but provide no details. It's all public records, and all heinous crimes that were committed in secret. It fits the article perfectly and belongs.Csp0316 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? Huh. I pull up the history and search for my name and it's there just twice. Two is obviously greater than three, at least in some conspiracy theory. I guess. Fear not - I'll be restoring the last consensus version after the 3RR report is handled. Hopefully then you'll start to use the talk page. Hint - get consensus first. Not that you've been told that before. Ravensfire (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Csp0316. I saw the 3RR report and considered closing it by blocking you. You've reverted so far five times on 14 March (06:01 throu 15:27). You may still be able to avoid sanctions if you will reply at the noticeboard and promise to stop warring. Even if you are actually right that is not a defence to WP:3RR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I will stop pushing that list, but think the non-list version should be returned to the article. All of the edit warring centered on the list on its contents, so I will back off on the list issue and allow it to be removed. Thanks.Csp0316 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Csp0316, I believe you mean well and truly want to help improve articles on Wikipedia but I think you ran into some problems common to new users. I'm glad you agreed not to continue to push the list and thus did not get blocked. Please understand that not every admin who watches the EW noticeboard is as forgiving and you probably came pretty close to a block over this. You MUST edit in a collaberative manner on Wikipedia. If editors object to something you've added, you need to work with them on the talk page and come up with something that is supported by WP:CONSENSUS. That doesn't mean everyone, but substantially all. If you can't get that clear consensus, there are various way to resolve the dispute that you can use that will often bring in outside views on the matter. The noticeboards for NPOV, reliable sources and original research can be quite helpful.

Some of the items on your list may be better suited for other articles. There is, for example, a List of conspiracies (political) that may benefit from adding some of your items. I just checked and virtually nothing on that article is cited which is disheartening. There is a tag (or template warning readers of possible issues on the article) noting the lack of sources. If you do add some of your items to that list, please include a good reference with each one that says that particular item was considered a conspiracy.

Sourcing (or references or cites, all the same thing) is absolutely critical to Wikipedia. Basically, anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged in an article needs to be sourced. The policy on original research says that the source must specifically support the exact claims made in the statement(s) using that source as a reference. Taking your list as an example, we would need a source for each one saying a couple of things. That single source would need to say that this was a conspiracy, that it was confirmed to be true and that it was formerly considered a conspiracy theory. Ultimately, that is what the article is about, conspiracy theories and not just conspiracies.

A key point is that the one single source has to make all of those claims or we're getting into something called synthesis. That's using multiple sources that support different claims to derive an entirely new claim that's not made by a source. It's a tough line that's easy to cross by accident and really requires you to examine what you've got in each source and that you're not combining them in a novel way. You can do that in a debate or a blog, but not on Wikipedia. Also, try to avoid primary sources when you can. It's really, really easy to end up using original research when you use primary sources too much.

Appreciate you taking the time to read this. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what OR and synthesis are and in almost every case this was neither. I merely inserted links to relevant articles on major subjects that are household names among those knowledgeable about conspiracies, and there is zero doubt as to whether or not they occurred. They need no sourcing and you know it. The editors involved in the supposed consensus have a strong agenda against anything that casts conspiracy theory in a positive light. They went back and removed every change I made to the article (cognitive dissonance, Rothbard, etc). As I have shown in recent talk posts, the standards aren't the same as with other edits. No matter how sound my arguments are, they'll revert things amongst 3 or 4 accounts to avoid 3RR, use vague edit comments like 'unsourced see talk' or 'adds nothing- discuss' and cause me to get blocked. Stuff like this just makes WP a bad joke, propaganda with a veneer of academic integrity. Despite your advice you've just been part of the problem. Csp0316 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Csp0316 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: ). Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)