User talk:24.22.141.252/Archive 1

Hairy prawns

It would help if you identify the page about which you have a concern. --Philcha (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is Arthropod.[1] This hardly looks like the kind of site upon which we should rely for ethnographic claims, especially on such a high-profile article, and a google search for the terms turns up nothing. You wrote in your summary "sources say its a delicacy" - to what sources were you referring? Mind you, I have no knowledge that they are not considered a delicacy in Cambodia, but would only like to see this surprising claim backed up by a reliable source.24.22.141.252 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to identify yourself, why should I pay any attention to you? Stand up and be counted, or stop sniping from the shadows.

See the latest change.

I found further sources using Google. You could have done the same. Why didn't you?

Congratulations, you've wasted 30 mins of my time when I'd rather have been working on a another article. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did the right thing to begin with by changing "considered a delicacy" to merely "eaten." Thank you for these additional sources, which describe the situation in greater detail.[2][3] Neither claims that tarantulas are considered a delicacy in Cambodia. Instead, they state that the spiders were first eaten (as I'd surmised) during starvation under the Khmer Rouge, and that subsequently, Cambodians happily stopped eating them except in Skuon. Thanks to your new sources, we can make the appropriate changes. If you feel that finding and reading them is a waste of time, there is always the option of declining to revert the correction of poorly-sourced (and as we now see, wrongly characterized) material.24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring, you are. One of the sources I added is explicit. If you cannot find a source that opposes this, it's over. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, I read both linked articles in full, and see nothing to this effect. Please provide a quote. Additionally, I found the 2008 edition of Lonely Planet Cambodia on google books - it likewise specifies (p. 283) that 1) the spiders are eaten in Skuon and 2) does not state that they are considered a delicacy.[4]24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Try text-searching in the sources. --Philcha (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your user talk, I found the passage you were referring to. I'd thought you meant this:"But then there's the spider's large, globular abdomen. This is the only really disturbing part of the animal: it's full of a dark brown paste that includes everything from eggs to the heart and spider excrement. One local man enthusiastically claimed these were a delicacy and was energetically popping spider rears into his mouth like grapes. But even some o£ the sellers blanched at this display of arachno-machismo."

Even so, if you read the opening line of the (unsigned) ABC News Australia piece in the context of all three sources, it's more accurate to state that tarantulas were eaten as a food of last resort during the Khmer Rouge years, continued to be eaten in Skuon and have recently become popular in other areas of the country. "Considered a delicacy in Camboda" gives one the impression that it is traditionally prized above most other foods, which I see no indication is the case - and the sources cast doubt upon by stating that people outside of Skoun eagerly stopped eating them once other food became available. This is instead a device to grab the readers' attention: "They see tarantulas as a delicacy! Those wacky Cambodians!"24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 24.22.141.252, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Two-Spirit

To show citations on a talk page you may use <nowiki></nowiki> if necessary, which turns off formatting or markup. More info at WP:NOWIKI. Hyacinth (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful tip, Hyacinth.24.22.141.252 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please respect Benjiboi talk page

It's clear that Benjiboi can remove comments from their talk page and please respect the user's right. Please see WP:BLANKING. Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He's a plagiarist; what's to respect? And why does Wikipedia want such "contributors"? Even he won't take responsibility for his contributions; why would you?24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refine from making refrain from making accusations and assume good faith. If you have strong evidence then use the proper channels rather then edit war on the user's talk page. Bidgee (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should I refran from making accusations when the accusations are plainly true? It's you (Wikipedia) which havebeen negligent in not looking at this before. You have a long time contributor who thinks nothing of copying and pasting other people's work, and using it without crediting its author(s) - that is, stealing it - and I'm the problem?24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what are "the proper channels"? I'd thought discussion was the proper channel…is this wrong?24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User talk:Bidgee has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"as it appears to be unconstructive"

According to?

How did you learn of this discussion, Fieldday-sunday?24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussions on talk pages are viewable to all, not just to the relevant participants. The edit in question removed content in which another user stated they had retired. It is for that user to say whether they are actively using Wikipedia or not - not another user of the website. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Help me get this straight - it doesn't matter if it's actually true?

Again, how did you learn of this discussion?24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It actually doesn't matter. The point is that Wikipedia isn't a battleground. You may have some valid points but they are completely lost if you are disruptive and are blocked for doing so. Pretend that all editors are here to improve articles. We work with one another, not in opposition. We also don't direct other's work but find ways to get agreed upon work done. If you see something that should be fixed it may make sense to simply fix it rather than berate someone else for messing it up. See if a lighter approach doesn't effect the changes you wish to see. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here you are edit-warring to restore your plagiarism.[5]24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy 3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Violence against LGBT people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please consider content, VirtualSteve. I am reverting plagiarism/copyright violation. You are a serious player in WP politics, and I expect that you'll get this right. If you block me for removing plagiarism, it won't - and shouldn't - be forgotten. I invite you instead to fairly investigate this very serious matter. I'm happy to email under my RWI if that would help.24.22.141.252 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The above warning is provided as guidance and you have not been blocked for edit warring - however I note that you have continued to raise your concerns over what you suggest is plagiarism in many forums. I have no problem with your argument but 3RR is still a relevant concern unless the reversions are for blatant vandalisms. I note your request to email me in private. I will be happy to receive that email (although I will shortly retire for the night) as you wish and I will do so without displacing your privacy - however whomever you are in terms of your RWI you should be aware that your edits should not include attacks in edit summaries etc on other user talk pages. Wikipedia does not have a deadline - you can raise issues about plagiarism, request protection of pages etc without resorting to attacks on others.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that I can edit my talk page again; thanks for that, VirtualSteve.24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Having reviewed your edits since coming to your page to give you a 3RR warning I note that you completely ignored the friendly message from Fieldday-sunday above about not being disruptive at another users talk page. Indeed you baited and argued with him and then returned to the same editor in questions talk page to leave this edit and accompanying harassing edit summary. I expect you to take warnings to not disrupt this project seriously. Please do not do so again in the future else block lengths will escalate. I am now going to leave a block template below this message - please ensure you leave this message and the block message on your talk page until the block is expired - unless you accept the block. Thank you.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closely, I made the same null edit that Benjiboi just did to leave an edit summary about me("the anon"); in fact, I'd reverted to Bidgee's own version.[6]24.22.141.252 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually your two edits are completely different!--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoid interacting with Benjiboi

Benjiboi is concerned about you following him. Please avoid interacting with him, or you may be blocked. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No trouble. I wasn't aware that he'd actually edited that article back in June - it's way below the fold in the history. I'd only checked up on the work of an editor to these articles in my field.

I do wonder why anyone would take any measures at all to keep him around…but hey, it's not as if we're trying to create a respectable and reliable scholarly resource, or anything!24.22.141.252 (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)