User talk:Caustic Logic

As i've seen you added an supposedly internal Noura link, and i've fixed one or two already and saw also Petri fix one, here's a little smart-assery (so that you have your own talk page as well ;o)):

An external link, like you used now, has the problem that should the wiki move at one point, those links are "hardwired" and have to get fixed manually (and they have that little symbol indicating them to be external). This is what you used:

Noura

Single brackets, link, space, description. An internal link goes like this:

Noura

Double brackets, name of the article, pipe, description. Relative, should URL change it will still work. And if the internal link goes to a different section of the same article, you can shorten it like this:

Noura

--CE 00:29, 26 September 2012 (EST)


 * Oh, I thought that only worked when it had the exact name of a whole page. Will practice and keep in mind. Thanks for the smart-assness, hope to be just as smart-assed someday. :) --Caustic Logic 09:01, 26 September 2012 (EST)

Malnourished victim
(Suggested material I later worked into this page) --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC) This was discussed somewhere: You can remove the comment if you move the link somewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Child martyr Ibrahim Khalil result undernourishment Medmah the Sham 31 8 2013 – Mrkzmoadamia alsham
 * I'll keep it here for right now, but it desrves a page soon. I'm on this one, in extremely general but effective terms, detail analysis hardly needed. At an al-Akhbar article on the UN report (a great one - I see we have it included, good) I saw a comment by fellow wiki member Clay Claiborne, who shifted the subject to allegations of regime shelling that was starving more kids in Moadamiya, this time a baby girl "in danger of death."
 * Clay, these alleged baby-starving shells are off-topic emotive distractions here, and besides - babies get preference even under siege. If babies are starving and everyone else isn't, (are they? I only see scattered kids) look to the people immediately around that baby. One has a rebel activist video camera. Other activists explain the whole story and get suckers like you to push for NATO air cover, over these regime CW attacks and regime blockades.

Next step will be to get visuals of any non-starving rebel fighters who are running the place at the relebvant time, put the images side by side and ask why the fighters aren't sharing food with the kids. Was there a mercy embargo? Or do they just want more dead kids to guilt trip us with, in hopes we're not thinking straight (and most aren't). --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Half-way related (I think), check what Fisk writes about Moadamiyah and the operations of that night. --CE (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely to note, more to the "chemical shelling" part we still didn't cover here yet. What's up with that? As for the shelling so bad even the babies are starving, here's the guys sent to meet the UN team on the 26th - Youtube. Everyone here seems leaner than average, actually, but that's probably a coincidence, other than about two pretty beefy guys by the door, and no one chubby. Not the best example I'm sure. For reference, the one Clay points to is this, difficult to watch, unnecessary (filmed on or before September 23). A little girl, I don'y know, a year or two old but bald like newborn? Poorly kept by someone, cellophane diaper, rebel doctor jabbing at her symptoms at length for our edification. She's breathing hard, looking hard, thinking hard, cooperating, tender all over but jabbed all over, not at death's door but within a few blocks of it. I sense no human compassion coming her way from the people in this room. Subjective I know, but I dare you to test that. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

More sources on this: http://972mag.com/after-chemical-attack-damascus-suburbs-face-starvation/79851/ I left a comment in the Facebook pane. Curious if it come through. Also comments below, don't seem to have.

I didn't do more here tonight/this AM because I thought we were in read-only mode. I hear that's to happen soon and for most of the weekend as they get everything onto new servers and hopefully solve the overload problems (?) they've been having. Anyway, been assembling some assorted things offline. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pro-War Lefties
A thing I've been meaning to write on - self-described leftists and outright Communists and such who eagerly take almost exactly New York's position on Syria as if Marx himself would do the same. This when the target is besieged by fundamentalist and imperialist nations for standing with Iran (state-run central bank) in resistance to Israel, once allied to anti-Imperialist victim of imperialism Baathist Iraq (state bank), maintaining a strong Socialist leaning and the only Arab country (?) with a Communist party both allowed and doing well, placing second to Ba'ath in the May 2012 Peoples Assembly elections. And there are those who would tell us the anti-imperialist struggle is the one waged by Syria's youths with those bearded chins and shaved upper lips, and some of Libya's and Saud's rejects and Salfists from some 40 other countries, funneled and armed by Turkey and NATO, riled up by reactionary genocidal Gulf imams, its supposed leaders in Turkey recognized by the imperialist bloc, with Israeli air force help on occasion, and the al CIA-da cancer seeping into every slice made ... It's interesting to watch these people in action. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Louis Proyect, an "unrepentant Marxist" has a guide for the perplexed on Syria, a list of guides he considers leftist who have penned convincing articles for the rebellion and against the regime. He derides "the Marxist purists who genuflect to Bashar al-Assad" and muses "How the “anti-imperialist” left can rally around a government capable of such depraved action is a mystery beyond comprehension." Capable of, accused of, same difference. One of his guides wrote:
 * Louis Proyect
 * The main actors so far have been educated youth and unemployed youth seeking access to modernity ... many of the people in the streets are what I would call lumpen proletariat ... The other component of this movement comes from the lower middle class, especially young unemployed university graduates. ... because they have to live with their parents ...

To be fair, that's from 2011, but Proyect cites it in late August 2013, and offers elsewhere some "dos and dont's" for "progressives" discussing the war and hoping to do so in his style. Included:
 * DON’T obsess over al-Qaeda, Islamist extremists, jihadists, etc. ... DON’T let genuine concerns with US imperialism, Israel, Saudi, etc make you look at pictures and videos of dead children and think conspiracy. Bashar is an authoritarian dictator...

... and probably did kill those kids and just leave them for rebels to find, again. After all, Proyect reminds us for context:
 * [Asad's] record of resistance is a bit sketchy. Just remember he collaborated with the US on things such as CIA renditions. Just because the CIA is training a few fighters in Jordan or some anonymous rebel leader is quoted in some Israeli paper doesn’t mean this isn’t a legitimate Syrian uprising against a brutal regime.

As for how he gets so smart about what's going on, I don't know. I can say he doesn't seem open to new information. Highlighting "the worst atrocity of the war" in al-Bayda and Baniyas, he blamed the regime based on what activists said. When I pointed out in a comment that the victims were government-loyalist Imam who had called for all rebels to be killed a month before he and so many innocents were killed instead. He simply deleted that and pretended it didn't exist. Seems he learned some things from Stalin, anyway. I saved the comment, will dig it up and post here later. --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Side-note on the CIA rendition assistance: mainly seems to be Maher Ahrar (WP). A Syrian-Canadian citizen, arrested on suspect intel as a possible AQ terrorist, sent by the United States to Syria instead of Canada, where he was held for a year, where the wikiperdia article says Arar "claims he was beaten for several hours and forced to falsely confess that he had attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. “I was willing to do anything to stop the torture,” he says." With these forced confessions in hand, the article says, "the Syrian government later stated that Arar was "completely innocent." and "Syrian official Imad Moustapha stated that "We tried to find anything. We couldn’t". Syrian authorities also denied that they tortured Arar." --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been wanting to put together such a list for a while, but by now, one of the intended targets is a fellow member of this wiki. Any thoughts on the best way to take advantage of that dynamic for the greatest learning potential and the widest public good? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clay Claiborne

Threatening new editors
Hi Caustic Logic,

My name is Lynton from the ShoutWiki Customer Support Team. I dropped by your wiki in a random check for vandalism and spam, and came across this message that you left on a new editor's talk page.

I am quite concerned that this is your approach to wiki administration. Blocking should never be threatened to new editors who are yet to make any contributions to your wiki. You should be encouraging new editors and offering to show them 'around' and how to get started contributing. What you have done here (and I can only assume previously) is simply discourage or even scare off participation from new contributors.

You have chosen to start an open wiki here on ShoutWiki, and with that comes certain requirements for you to act in an open and collaborative manner. If you aren't able to uphold those ideals, then we may have to review the administration of this wiki, which is certainly not something that I would like to do.

I am keen to hear your thoughts on this matter. Please respond on my talk page so that I am notified.

Regards,

— Lynton  talk •  email  04:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Our Sign-Up and Speak-Up Policy is Explained here on the Community portal page. Please share your thoughts there or on the talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lynton! I wanted to say hi here and type out the response first. As Petri says, it's a policy we have, explained there (here). For my part, I'm the softie who was slow to block people at first. In fact I'm still vague what the problem with zombie accounts is, and at least as open as anyone to a change. And, in fact, as soon as I helped set that policy (I coined sign up and speak up!), it became less useful as real contributing members started showing up (but often still not speaking up right away) - I blocked one on accident (Claycali, see above) but we un-blocked him and I coaxed him back. So, we're enforcing loosely, giving benefits of the doubt and time. I certainly am keen not to chase away contributors of any sort, but we have the policy for some good reason. And I will now double-check that PavewayIV feels welcome as I hope, but with the warning in place until the three of us core folks agree to change it. Fair enough I hope? --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I've read your responses and taken a look at your policy. I still have my concerns. If you are facing persistent vandalism or spam, then that is something we can assist you with, as we have a range of tools not available to wiki administrators to combat this. I've just blocked a number of IP addresses that have been problematic in the past. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have these issues again. That being said, I've seen your block log, and there are three entries for this month. The administrative effort to clean up after three accounts is hardly worth the massive disservice you are doing to this wiki by following this particular policy. I urge you to reconsider, and in the meantime I will consult with my colleagues regarding this particular policy. — Lynton  talk •  email  03:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Lynton. I created this wiki, although i'm not the one who proposed the policy in question. That was Petri Krohn who has a chest full of badges over at wikipedia and knows what he is doing. We made sure that nobody goes unaware of the policy not only by the description you were already made aware of, but also by a bold red message after account creation. The reason why there are only three blocks you have seen in October might have something to do with the fact that October wasn't a usual month at ShoutWiki. When signing up I've seen no "certain requirements" that would prevent us from cleaning the user list from zombie accounts, many of them easily to google as spammers, while giving clear guidelines to new users how they avoid to be mistaken as such. So, Caustic Logic did not really threaten the user, but gave him an additional reminder of our policy, I suppose because his name doesn't follow the usual pattern. Maybe we should keep in mind to do this in a friendlier manner, giving the benefit of the doubt not only by the action of an additional message, but also by the tone of it. Would that be better? --CE (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We should have a template.
 * As to the block log: No one has been blocked because of our "policy". We have one banned user, the "SEO Spammer". All the other accounts have been blocked as verified or suspected sockpuppets of this one user (or simply for spamming). How we identify sock puppets is an other story. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)