User talk:Ksmith009
The Hard Talk reference needs to be in a text format. Video links are not accessible. Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Replaced the link - it works fine.
Audio/ Video from BBC is suitable as a reference.
- Sorry, but that is not true. I have had references on other articles that existed solely as video removed. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia can view video. K8 fan (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Tried to ensure page is as balanced as possible but maintains integrity by showing multiple perspectives all referenced.
- Understand. Please understand that blog posts by non-verified sources are not acceptable sources. K8 fan (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Re. Blog posts - fine. Have left out.
Re. audio video - Please read this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Quote: "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source"
BBC Hard Talk surely meets the criteria in both our opinions - and its not even opinion based - its an interview with him
RE. claims of torture, length of time interrogated etc. - the most reliable source are the British prisoner's themselves who were interviewed, and not a Human Rights organisation writing second or third hand at the time generally about the 26 prisoners, some of whom may have been treated differently.
- A small amount of consistancy would be helpful. Previously, you had removed any claim made my Naajid Nawaz himself. You appear to have an agenda. K8 fan (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is consistent as I am using his words from a collective interview, therefore it is corroborated, and not a hegeographical account. The agenda appears to be yours in lionizing him.
I consistently used the words "claims" and "alleged" when it is from a personal account which is not verified except by the person. This is consistent in respect to how they were treated, and to what is claimed to have happened in prison.
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Maajid Nawaz[edit]
I have protected this page for 1 week due to a content dispute in which you appear to be a party. Follow dispute resolution and do not engage in edit warring. Additionally, it is inappropriate to carry out debates through edit summaries since it requires a revert to make a point. Please use the article talk page instead, and reserve your edit summaries for explanations of what changes you are making rather than the rationale behind the changes (and rebuttals).
Protection is not an endorsement of the current revision. Please use this period to work on the talk page to reach consensus. --causa sui (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If consensus is not reached I am confident any moderator will see my position is justified and the other user is being unreasonable in this case, for whatever reason.
Block[edit]
Ksmith009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason given "SPA used solely for edit warring on a single topic" is incorrect, as I have been involved on multiple pages.
One page had a brief edit tussle which was resolved at the end - you can refer to the discussion page on Maajid Nawaz Hizb utTahrir page my last version was referred to by an administrator to undo vandalism of 2 other users Those same two other users were vandalising the Quilliam Foundation page as well, while I was adding new information. I have also contributed to the James Brandon page.
So though I was caught up in some conflicts - if you review I think you will find that apart from the Nawaz page where there was genuine differences (which were resolved) - the other pages were being vandalized by 2 accounts which it appears were sock-puppet accounts as well
All of my edits have been backed by empirical evidence which is referenced. Ksmith009 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were clearly edit-warring, which you must not do even if you are right. And you won't get unblocked by denying it and blaming everyone else -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
REPLY: How did I deny it? I mentioned clearly "I was caught up in some conflicts"? As for blaming others - I simply pointed out that the other users were sock-puppets, and merely vandalising whereas I was actually midway through adding content. Ksmith009 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ksmith009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please see my reply above. I don't see why I am blocked when the reason given is actually incorrect since the account was not solely used for this purpose. In future rather than putting my edits in, I will alert the admin to vandals directly (could you please point me to how this is done) Ksmith009 (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason for the block was edit warring. The exact wording of the block log is irrelevant, and wikilaywering about it will not get you unblocked. Edit warring reports can be filed to WP:AN3, for reference when you do get unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
Ksmith009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok I understand it now. In future then I will file any problematic accounts which are trying to over-ride normal edits, and refuse to engage in edit warring and let an admin deal with it. Ksmith009 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You fail to understand that you are just as problematic as they are. We go by WP:CONSENSUS, and the best essay on policy you can read is this one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
- I don't feel good about unblocking a person who doesn't understand Wikipedia's basic collaborative model. Admins are not referees in content disputes; rather, all editors work together to resolve content disputes. Your suggested plan, of asking admins to 'deal with' your content disputes in the future, is not the best way to help the encyclopedia improve. I see links on this talk page to the pages explaining how that works, but you may have missed them- you might find it helpful to read WP:TALKPAGE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISPUTE to develop a richer understanding of how we Wikipedians cope with differences of opinion about what the best version of an article would look like. As you and User:Fwan123 recently discovered, repeatedly reverting one another's edits doesn't result in a long-term improvement of the encyclopedia, since everyone can keep reverting indefinitely, and it just makes all the involved people so angry that they are unable to work together. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the dispute a little more closely, it looks like each of you has a specific point of view on the subject, and that is influencing the information that each of you wants to add. Neither of you seem to be editing in a truly neutral way. You might find some of the remedies at WP:DISPUTE especially helpful; assistance from a few editors who don't already have an opinion about this organization, and can look at the available sources from a more neutral point of view, would probably be very helpful in achieving consensus on this article. If there is a subject area in which you find it difficult to be neutral, you might consider asking to be unblocked on the condition that you avoid writing about that subject. Are you interested in any subjects other than Muslim politics? Football, perhaps, or Antarctica, or Puppies? Wikipedia has many, many articles that could be improved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)