User talk:BowlAndSpoon

Hello, I saw your reverts. At the very least the quote needs context, which I added. If you prefer to keep the quote then please put appropriate historical context around it. Whizz40 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your objetions? Thanks. Quantanew (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you for your contribution in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, I've noticed you removed some sources in your latest edits because of "not reliable source", can you please guide me on how to know which sources are reliable and which are not? is there a list for it or something? Thanks.YemArabSf (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@YemArabSf: Hello! I have this problem myself sometimes, and would also love to find a list of acceptable sources! I could only find these articles:

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Wikipedia:Suggested sources

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples

Perhaps this is the place to ask about reliability of a source:

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

If you want to challenge a source that someone is trying to use, this is the place (I think):

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Beyond that, I have no idea.

globalresearch.ca, the website of the Centre for Research on Globalization, if that is one of the sources you were referring to, is just a crazy place for crazy people. It is for this reason that I deleted it. Some of the stuff Global Research post is sane, but there's mountains of conspiracy crap on there, so there's no way it seriously be considered reliable.

I deleted the Arabic-language sources only where I could find English-language ones to replace them. As to which Arabic sources are reliable, I have no idea. I don't know Arabic, so I'm simply not familiar with the Arab media – obviously excepting things like Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, and so on.

Sorry I can't be more help. Best wishes! --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info, I will find English alternatives for Arabic sources in the future.YemArabSf (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to mention to you, Al Arabiya looks like a media but it's actually a propaganda, it brings insane information about it's enemies, and never talks or denies the accusation Saudi gets by International organization like HRW, Unicef .. ect, for instance, where the world said 2 top gulf commanders were killed by ballistic missile along with 150 troops, Saudi and UAE propaganda claims that the ballistic missiles were shot by patriot defense system, then how the heck the 2 top gulf commanders(Al Kutbi & Al Sahyan) were killed..

the sources that approves that the camp was hit by a hothi missile killing dozens:

• http://www.janes.com/article/56688/analysis-arab-coalition-reportedly-hit-by-second-tochka-missile-attack-in-yemen
• http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/12/14/united-arab-emirates/77289732/
• http://www.uk.reuters.com/article/uk-yemen-security-idUKKBN0TX0FN20151214

Pro Saudi sources that said it was shot by patriot:

Alarabiya :

• http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/alarabiya-today/2015/12/19/%D8%B1%D8%B5%D8%AF-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AE%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A3%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9.html
• http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-today/2015/12/19/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%8A-.html

Emaraties :

• http://www.skynewsarabia.com/web/article/800292/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AE%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%94%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9

those pro saudi sources said that 2 ballistic missile were shot towards Saudi but both of them were shot down by patriot..

there is an English version for Al Arabiya sources up there, I will find them and edit this post in the future.

so I wont use it and hope you too will not use and relay on more reliable sources. YemArabSf (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@YemArabSf: Fear not, friend! I know Al Arabiya is Saudi propaganda outfit. I would never use it for the Yemen article, other than to quote an official Saudi announcement or something! Thanks, however, for the reminder. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for asking such ridiculous question, a pro-Saudi writer was using it as a source in the article in the Arabic Wikipedia version :), I really loved the English community, more mature and more globalized. YemArabSf (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? The 3O, by uninvolved editors seems pretty clear. Red Stone Arsenal (talk)

"You should also delink every following thing that is in the list"

Why? Your edit breaks the consistency of the wikilinks; there are no analogous "criticism of neoliberalism" or "criticism of state capitalism" pages. Vrrajkum (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrrajkum:

"there are no analogous…"

So what? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the disambiguation list Zio; A pejorative abbreviation of zionist, often regarded as antisemitic. I would strongly suggest you take far more care in your use of language here. I am sure there will be no repetition of such behaviour by yourself. Irondome (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot for the life of me see how it is antisemitic (all Jews are Zionists?). Is the term Little Englander thought of as anti-English racism? Nationalists, of whichever nation they like to imagine themselves a part (note the immediate lean towards fascism), are tedious people whose understanding of historical facts is at least highly selective, and invariably almost complete garbage. Anyway, a discussion on antisemitism, Zionism, and Israel is not going to happen here. I'll avoid the term 'Zio' in future because of Wikipedia policy on civil behaviour. Best wishes etc. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to edit summaries, so I have deleted your edit summary that insulted the subject of Mary Hogg. Please remember to edit neutrally and not be abusive towards living people in edit summaries or on talk pages. Fences&Windows 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Voluntary Straight Ally
	If you need a friend and a place to securely discuss your views without any backlash from TTAAC, find me. Milexpert101 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Milexpert101: Yes, I need a safe space from TTAAC. Where can we converse safely? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Hillary Clinton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 11:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Did you place the alert because you think this edit violated WP:BLP? If it did, exactly why? Thank you. KamelTebaast 05:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kamel Tebaast. I placed it because they're editing in sensitive areas, and therefore knowing about discretionary sanctions should be useful to them. (They thanked me for the edit.) Incidentally, BowlAndSpoon, you can remove what you like from your page, but I think this removal may have been a mistake. There were two alerts, for blp's and post-1932 American politics, hence the "alerts" in the header. You removed the American politics. Doesn't matter, as long as you're aware of it. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: thank you for responding. Do you think this edit violated WP:BLP? If it did, exactly why?

IP, you didn't ping me; one of the advantages of creating an account is that accounts can use the notification system, which IPs can't. Even from an account, a ping only works if you sign. But I'll respond, now that I've caught sight of your question. Yes, it violated BLP. I'm glad it was quickly removed, and I think BowlAndSpoon's reinsertion with the argument "unexplained removal of sourced material" was based on a complete misunderstanding. Sourced? A youtube video with a footnote linking to itself only demonstrates the video exists. That's not "sourced", as in having received attention in reliable sources. And therefore it violates the BLP policy: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source." Bolding in the original. And that's not youtube. Bishonen | talk 06:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Are you prepared to accept any criticism of Milne? Or do you intent on removing everything except references to his articles in the Views section? Philip Cross (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like Milne, but he's better than much of what passes for commentary in our papers. He's obviously got a soft spot for the Soviet Union, which is incomprehensible to me, and reflects badly on him, just as it did on that crusty old Marxist, Eric Hobsbawm. My problem isn't with criticism of the guy, it's the screeching idiots who are cited. Op-eds by former Daily Mail hack Melanie Phillips? The human dross that takes up so much space in Murdoch's papers? Much, maybe most, of the criticism used isn't even fair, since it totally distorts what Milne says. Actually, I wouldn't even mind the criticism, just edit out the totally NPOV manner of using the shittiest quotes available.

Out of curiosity, do you know if Milne has ever offered the estimate he thinks is closest to the true figure of dead for the Ukrainian famine. I presume it must be the low millions. All Milne says in article, correctly, is that the number has been a source of dispute and that it has decreased over time, as Tim Snyder says is generally the case:

In almost every case, they decline over time and upon examination. As a rule of thumb, the first number in a range (for example, 225,000 to 1,500,000 in Mr. Lane's letter) usually turns out to be closer to the truth.

Milne is not wrong, despite what the screeching idiots seem to think. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Hillary Clinton for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. 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. - MrX 11:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you perpetrate one more WP:BLP violation at Talk:Hillary Clinton or Talk:Donald Trump, or anywhere else for that matter, such as here and here, you will be topic banned indefinitely from pages related to American politics. WP:BLP applies to all pages, not just articles. And talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for expressing your opinions of the subject, compare MrX above. Especially not in the form of calling living people things like "that ghastly Clinton thing" — completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

OK, fair enough. I'll give it a rest. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BowlAndSpoon for reverting the tendentious message on my talkpage. Dr. K. 16:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K.: Absolutely no problem. How ridiculous, talking to you as though you are a novice editor. His complaint wasn't even correct. I've never deleted stuff from someone's talk before, but that was sheer twaddle that did not deserve to stay. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twaddle, is a really apt, as well as delightful, term. :) Thank you again BowlAndSpoon. Dr. K. 16:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BowlAndSpoon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BowlAndSpoon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BowlAndSpoon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Mary Harper (journalist), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mary Harper (journalist), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BowlAndSpoon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mary Harper".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]