Hello, Cathar66, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murry1975 I only have one operational account on Wikipedia. I used to be known as Cathar11 but as I've forgotten the password i cant access it anymore. I act alone. If you need to know more talk anytime Cathar66 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to inform you that I did not make a 3RR violation and your unexplained revert was not necessary.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies there were so many reversions I lost track of who did what. CATO Opinion pieces are not a reliable source. And yes I read the totally unscientific basis for the allegations which were a confabulation of half truths, lies and selective statistics. The original article on the CATO website.Cathar66 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally in an education magazine but the content that was in the article is in the form of a commentary. I'm not sure if we can judge article as such though from reliable sources, that is why I opened up a discussion that I will inform only two other about that are fairly neutral. Please feel free to leave your comment.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I won't invite anyone since I'll probably get accused for canvassing.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;)Cathar66 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edit to Human Resources (Non-Profit) caused an edit conflict. You'll note that I put two banners at the top of the article indicating that I'm in the middle of a big rewrite. Your editing interrupts my progress. Please take note next time if {{under construction}} or the like is present. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Chris Troutman (talk I noticed the article was listed for deletion and just glanced at the heading before reading the article and then edited a faulty ref. I added it to my watchlist as I thought it was worth saving. No harm taken or intended.Cathar66 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please don't mark wholesale revisions of text as "minor". 2. You have the onus reversed - there is no consensus to include that material. Please read WP:ONUS, which documents an English Wikipedia policy. Specifically the line that reads "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." 3. If you want to participate in the discussion on consensus building, please do so on the talk page. You have not done so to date. If you delete the material again without discussion, I will report this behavior. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Don't Wiki lawyer me User:Brad Dyer. There are already two other editors who want to keep this section in. you are the person going against the consensus for inclusion. Cathar66 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are 3 editors pushing for inclusion, but not supporting their POV with policy-based arguments. I have given you the policy based argument for exclusion, and am supported in this by another user. You do not have consensus for including it. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do the quotes enhance your knowledge about Carmel? This revert is totally unjustified. The quote is focused on the nearby village, not on Carmel. Please explain me how this is related! in addition WP:NPS requires quotes to be part of relevant conversation. Since the article doesn't speak about difference between life style of settlers and Palestinians, please explain how they are relevant. Ashtul (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In this edit you removed content from the Landmark Worldwide article, with an edit summary indicating that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not reliable sources. What do you base that understanding on? Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tgeairn A tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not WP:RS. The Irish Daily Mail is not used as RS in Wiki in Ireland.Cathar66 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was not aware that Irish Daily Mail was considered tabloid journalism. Isn't Mayfair pretty much like Playboy magazine? We use Playboy as a source here on en. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tgeairn Are you an employee or a volunteer at Landmark?Cathar66 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in this section. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tgeairn You didn't answer it there either.Cathar66 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, 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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

@ Tgeairn You're becoming irritating . Stop WP:Wikilawyering.

Hello. With this edit, you restored content and a reference. Your edit summary indicated that the content is sourced to the Huffington Post. Please review the source again. While the link points to the Huffington Post, the content at the linked page is a self-provided bio (blog author bio). Even though the site is Huffington, the source is still self-provided (and therefore not reliable). I request that you self-revert. Thanks for your attention, Tgeairn (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only just now noticed you reverted all of my edits in the article that I made two weeks ago by saying I conducted an unexplained removal of sources. You were mistaken, I did not remove any sources. If you would carefully check you would see I replaced the older info and sources (some of them dating back to early September) with more UP-TO-DATE info and NEWER sources (published in late December). I hope that clears it up. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies EkoGraf the lack of an edit summary caused this misunderstanding.Cathar66 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have suppressed some of your recent edits for revealing non-public, personal identifying information. Google is not wonderful on-wiki, do not do this again or you may be temporarily blocked to prevent further disruption. Keegan (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeeganApologies. I accept what you say and realise that I went too far. I will not do it again.Cathar66 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the section and understand its contents and would have been more circumspect if I had been aware of it beforehandCathar66 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Keegan (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. 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.  _→AzaToth 16:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cathar66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand and accept that the block was necessary and appropriate forharassing behavior, I will not do it again, and I will henceforth make productive contributions instead Cathar66 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I think Cathar66 understand the issue now _→AzaToth 04:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this block: how could one possibly reveal a COI as every attempt to put it in words is considered an harassment of other users? Catar66 was absolutely right, and not only the harassment but also the encyclopedic damage is persistently caused by the user with the COI. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have read the guidelines that govern this subject, I understand that the outing was not allowed. This means that an editor with a COI cannot be unmasked, as long as such an editor consistently lies about his COI, or skilfully evades the question. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from Theobald Tiger, however on Wikipedia we comment on the content, not the contributor. We do not expose personal information to gain a leg in a content debate, period. Keegan (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A period means that whatever I reply will be taken as mere sound, noise actually, so I had better keep silent. But what you say is disastrous for encyclopedic content. Deceivers might very well be extremely skilfull in their deceiving practice, onlookers are generally not well-informed, not always keen, and mostly dumb, and though you should - of course - always try to reveal a COI by content-driven argument first, there should be an end to it. When I arrived at the Landmark scene, I became immediately involved, unexpectedly so, in an Arbitration process, including offensive, insinuating and unfounded accusations with respect to my history on nl.wiki. Then I had to fight like a lion to stop the smearing of reliable sources. The next step the COI editor took was trying to have sanctions enforced on me. And you, Keegan, are perfectly content with your impeccable first principles, defending the block of Cathar66 who was absolutely right and who has done more to solve the Landmark trouble than most of us. I am grateful for the occasion to comment here. I hope Cathar66 enjoys his hot whisky's. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above unblock request, and as one of the editors that was on the receiving end of the behavior; given that blocks are intended to prevent damage rather than punish, I have no objection to the editor being unblocked. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Landmark Worldwide". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 February 2015.

I'm normally willing to undelete stuff upon a good-faith request, but what I deleted was perfectly useless and an extreme example of A7. Below find the entire contents of the article.

There were three edits in the history, all by User:478jjjz, and what I've given you is the final one; the original was just the first sentence, and the other two expanded it. You'd be better off just creating a new article :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on Sam Smyth, it's rather humourously not the guy you're interested in writing about. The first half sentence reads "Sam Smyth is an teenage sensation, known for...", and the remaining 2½ sentences are just attack stuff; it was probably something written by some classmate who had a beef with him. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, life is funny sometimes. I did do a short bit of background research on Rafiq in early January and there are plenty of online sources on him. I of course remember that piece of Hasbara which, if my memory serves me right, was part of a general Wiki problem at that time. I'm lazy so if something already exists why bother redoing work. I'm deleting the info you sent me as none of it is of any relevance to me. This I presume is a correct exception to normal etiquette. Revert if not. Take it easy. Cathar66 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no complaints; it's not like you're editing my comments to make it look like I said something I didn't :-) Agree on the "why bother redoing". Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I hadn't realised that you were the editor that blocked me and humbly hope that you will notice that I am following your instruction to make useful contributions to the letter. Sorry again about my poor behaviour I will in future try to be better and construct new articles, like Rafiq or San Smyth in a more constructive manner.Cathar66 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you? I don't even remember hearing of you before. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. I'm going blind then. I will have to start using my glasses when online. I take back all the humble stuff as well. It was Azatoth in tiny letters. Take it easy.Cathar66 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have resumed the behaviour for which you were previously blocked ([1]), therefore I have blocked your account. You agreed not to research editors and harass them as part of your original block, this is an agreement you have not kept, which is why the block has been lengthened substantially.

I will repeat what you have been told already and which you confirmed you understood - comment on content, not contributor. If you have significant concerns about a given contributor, they can be referred to ArbCom privately for the Arbitration Committee to look into. Nick (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (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).

Cathar66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand that I was blocked for harassment, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead;Cathar66 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The unblock request is entirely unsatisfactory, in light of the blocks against your account, I need to see considerably more effort and demonstrating of understanding before I can begin to consider unblocking someone with a record of harassment on this project. Nick (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2015 (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.

The following text was originally added to User talk:Nick

I note that you have blocked an editor for harrasment. I 've looked at the dif involved and initially couldn't see any problem but then noticed I used a grammatical format. I looked at the page while I was previously blocked and tried without success to find it afterwards. My browser was in protected mode and can't record sites visited through proxy search (startpage). If I'd known that i recalled an actual string I would have searched using it the next morning. I genuinely didn't recall it. The dif shown was supposed to be jocular and not on, what I would consider to be, an open page. It wasn't intended to harass in an outing or other sense. I mmean did I really think that s/he would provide links to an off wiki source. It was tongue in cheek. I mentioned the dutch man because he is before an AN/I. I quoted a phrase from my recollection and probably should have put it in Italics. I actually genuinely and in honest sincerity believe that outing is dangerous and rightly more than unacceptable. I do not wish harm or consequences on anybody in Real Life. I did take it on board and henceforth would only refer to him or her or s/he. I thought that this was nuanced. I'm not young and can't help some stylistic idiosyncracies. I am now perplexed as to whether a single ' would have been more correct or whether even that or italics would make a difference. This is genuine. Maybe it was a Freudian Slip. I just don't know. Since Roger Casement was hanged on a misplaced comma in old english legislation so I suppose I can accept being blocked for misplaced or unnecessary quotation marks. It just doesn't feel right. I leave it in your hands you decide either way I can live with it.213.233.149.27 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have a dynamic and auto rotating IP your block on the IP side is just affecting other Vodafone Ireland users and I do not intend doing any edits while blocked. I think it also uses separate IP ranges (this time the same range next time maybe in the 89 range213.233.149.13 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Landmark Worldwide, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi, I'm Ironholds. Cathar66, thanks for creating Private Security Authority!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for writing this article! Please do improve it in response to the tags on it; let me know if you need any help :).

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks86.46.191.241 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sam Smyth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://180dfo.com/2014/02/the-worlds-top-investigative-journalists-16-who-matter-ireland-sam-smyth/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two COI editors I was aware of are both now indeffed. Who is left? Scr★pIron^IV 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV Wikicohen was unblocked this morning - see her talk page. Cathar66 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unblocked for legal threats this morning afer an appeal. But now indefinitely blocked for Sockpuppetry by a different admin - I would say that the editor is gone now. Scr★pIron^IV 14:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block for legal threats was by the Sockpuppet admin. She is currently unblocked.Cathar66 (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I see the sockpuppet block now.Cathar66 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; trust me, I was confused as well. I am not rushing to remove the tag, merely confused by the disconnect between the reasons for the block, the unblock announcement, the failure to unblock. A shame this article failed at AfD. Scr★pIron^IV 14:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Afd was the preferred solution to this mess. Cathar66 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cathar66. 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, Cathar66. 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, Cathar66. 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]