User talk:Billbowler2

elcome to Wikipedia Billbowler2, from WP:WER
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!
	Policies, guidelines and peer assistance	Help and Tutorials
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.	Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.	How to start a page. If you want to create a new article
	Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look.	Help. The complete help guide
	Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns.	Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance	Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space
	Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.	Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! Buster Seven Talk 10:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Iraq War

Please see Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note on editing policy and Iraq casualties

Hi Billbowler2, two quick notes that are important:

1 - Be careful on the Iraq War and Casualties of the Iraq War articles: over 3 reverts to a single page in a 24 hour period counts as edit warring.

If I am "edit warring" it is because you are edit warring. You're attempting to impose a highly biased POV-pushing framework on otherwise neutral introductory material and I am reverting that. And now in addition to edit warring you're moving on to "wiki-lawyering"Billbowler2 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 - As I mentioned here on Talk:Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War, there is a huge difference between a count of documented deaths, and a scientific survey that polls people throughout a country to come up with a real estimate of excess deaths. Because the subject we're disagreeing about at both pages is Casualties of the Iraq War, if you don't understand this difference, it would be better for you to recuse yourself from editing on the subject.

A "real estimate"? More loaded and subjective labeling. Some of those supposedly "scientific" survey sources you're lumping together are not "excess deaths". You don't even seem to understand the studies you're trying to impose your POV over. And whether some of them are "scientific" is openly disputed by published sources in the first place. You are not allowed to take sides in such disputes and modify the pages with loaded labels to conform to your POV.Billbowler2 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, peer-reviewed papers are sometimes criticized after publication, and yes, there are differences in methodology for each survey study. Nevertheless, the similarities between survey studies are overwhelming when you compare them with reports on documented deaths.

"Overwhelming" of what, all other differences that you're ignoring in favor of that one? That is fundamentally subjective and biased. You're not just noting a difference. You're elevating that difference as *the* definitive one and imposing arbitrary labels which makes this whole thing POV pushing and inappropriate. I think the difference you highlight is less significant than others. A number of academic and published sources cited on these pages agree. The following peer-reviewed papers, for example, wind up concluding in different ways that IBC, IFHS and ILCS are more credible at measuring deaths in Iraq than the Lancet or ORB. That is, your supposedly "overwhelming" difference between "types" is not what actually matters to these authors in the end. Other differences are more important and more "overwhelming", than the one you're interested in.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690802496898 http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-868_daponte.pdf?origin=publication_detail http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20A03C0F8F4BC3ABC125743500318AF6-cred_jun2007.pdf Billbowler2 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question - if you had to describe the difference between a survey of excess deaths and a body count, in your own words, how would you do it? -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, some of the surveys you're lumping together are not "excess deaths". IFHS and ORB are not "excess deaths".

Second, I think how I'd describe that is irrelevant, but a simple description might be that one of your groups are Speculation-based sources and the others are Fact-based sources. However, I suspect you would not like those subjective and arbitrary labels. And I would not suggest imposing them on the page for the same reason that your subjective and arbitrary labels should not be imposed. Additionally, an entirely different frame could be imposed to divide up the sources which is arguably more relevant. For example, one might be separating sources with clear and verifiable methodologies from sources with unclear and unverifiable methodologies. That is, can you actually understand from the published material how each source is collecting its data and constructing its numbers, and can you verify that the methodology claimed by each source was actually used by that source? Using that criteria would create camps that don't line up with yours, some 'surveys' and some 'counts' might wind up in the same category, but that is arguably a much more important distinction than yours. You could then label these two camps Fact-based sources and Faith-based sources. But again, somehow I think you wouldn't like that. You'd think it was biased and betrayed a POV.Billbowler2 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can call scientific surveys "speculation" or "faith based," if that's how you feel about the method used by scientists all around the world to estimate deaths due to conflict. I don't think anyone will agree with you.

As to IFHS and ORB, the IFHS found the same increased mortality rate (a method of estimating excess death) as the Lancet studies, and of the ORB deaths, at least 90% are violent deaths. Again, these survey methods are standard procedures for estimating deaths as a result of conflict, and are inherently different from body counts. -Darouet (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say above is wrong. IFHS did not find the same rate of anything as the Lancet. What it actually found was that the Lancet study grossly overestimated violent deaths, to the tune of about 4-6 times the likely true number according to their survey. And ORB did not asses "excess deaths" at all. And it is not true that "90% are violent". That was a finding of the second Lancet survey, but that finding is contradicted by every other relevant source on such an issue. You are simply wrong on every single thing you're saying here.

You then engage in more slippery subjective labeling. The methods of IFHS are not the same as Lancet, and neither are those the same as ORB. It's not even entirely clear what were the methods of Lancet or ORB when you come right down to it, a problem for which both have been heavily criticized. All of those sources have some general similarities but also many crucial differences. There is nothing "standard", for example, in the Lancet study's "main street biased" sampling procedure. IFHS does not use such a procedure. The Lancet used an experimental, decidedly non-standard, sampling approach that no other surveys of conflict deaths before or since have used (and I don't think anyone will ever use it again). The ways in which a source like the Lancet has deviated from "standard procedures" are numerous and extreme, as documented here for example: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690802496898#.U2AM4IVvmKw

Moreover, despite your claims, there are actually very few cases where "these survey methods", even generally speaking, have been used for "estimating deaths as a result of conflict". If you look at estimates of conflict deaths over history, almost none of the death tolls used for past conflicts have come from "these survey methods". There's a handful of such cases in recent history and that's it. And where those methods have been used more than once in the same conflict, they often conflict wildly with each other, as has again been the case in Iraq.

In the Iraq case, the findings of the sample surveys can be broken down broadly into two camps. See for example the analysis on pages 11 and 12 of this paper comparing violent deaths estimates from the different sources: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/2373

Three of the sample surveys (ILCS, IFHS, L1) wind up being in the range of 1.7-3.1 times the IBC number of civilian deaths, while two of the surveys (L2 and ORB) wind up being 12.2 times higher. That is a huge divergence between sources supposedly using the "same method". I'd add that the findings on violent deaths in the new PLOS survey would fall neatly into that first camp. So you actually have four of "these survey methods" pointing in one direction, and two of them pointing rather wildly in a very different direction. Part of the reason is that all of these surveys do not actually use the same methods, despite your effort to (over)generalize them. There are crucial, and many would say decisive, differences in their methods. I'd also add that the crux of the paper I cited above is that the ORB poll is not a "scientfic survey", and its resulting estimate is not in any way "scientific", again contrary to the loaded label you want to impose.Billbowler2 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting for sock puppetry

After my note above, it at least appears as though you just logged out and persisted as an IP, despite the fact that I linked the rules about edit warring. WP:SOC states that logging out and editing as an IP to avoid 3RR constitutes sock puppetry, so I've made a report here. -Darouet (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unaware, but browsers sometimes lose your login information, such as when a browser is closed or computer restarted, and you need to manually login again. If you don't realize that this has happened, your edits will appear with an IP instead of a user name.

Way to "assume good faith" though Darouet. And you're as guilty of approaching 3RR if not more so than I am. You're trying to impose an inherently biased labeling and segregation scheme onto otherwise neutral introductory references, which conflict with disputed positions in the cited sources themselves, which is why I am well justified in reverting such inappropriate edits.Billbowler2 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to assume good faith after you admit that you logged out and edited, therefore violating 3RR, why don't you revert your violation? Or is that something you won't do because you know I'm "trying to impose an inherently biased labeling and segregation scheme?" -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again, despite multiple warnings

Bill, I'm reporting you to the edit warring noticeboard here because you've continued to edit war, breaking 3RR three times now on two pages, despite my multiple warnings here and on those talk pages. It is possible to have a disagreement without breaking 3RR.-Darouet (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Iraq War. 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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billbowler2. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Billbowler2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel like I've been wrongly 'convicted' here, with 'WP:DUCK', which seems to mean basically 'he seems guilty'. I would request this be re-evaluated. I'd also point out that I was wrongly accused of the same thing by the same user back on May 2 as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Billbowler2/Archive Whatever it 'looks like' to some, I believe a proper review will show that at no point was i abusing multiple accounts or using multiple accounts to evade 3RR as alleged.Billbowler2 (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:DUCK means that if two people are doing exactly the same thing, then it's reasonable to assume that they are the same thing. And a "proper review" of the contribution histores here shows absolutely no doubt that you have been operating multiple accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:DUCK means that it's obvious. One week isn't so long; if you're truly innocent treat it as a wikibreak and if you're not the block will be longer the next time you violate the rules. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Origamite, but I really don't understand these rulings. If two people "do exactly the same thing" they're the same user? Interesting view, but i don't get it. I would suggest that users Darouet, Thucydides411 and Freepsbane are "doing exactly the same thing" as each other on the pages in question here. Does this mean they are all the same user? On the talk page for one of the other users that is supposedly me (Marytheo45), the same reviewer said that it was "blatantly obvious from your edit history and edit summaries that you are, in fact, Billbowler2." I would hope someone would check the IPs or something. If those Marytheo45 edits came from my IP I will gladly eat my hat. But so be it.Billbowler2 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]