Welcome to Wikipedia, Doady! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! A8 UDI 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable Sources for content. The Hill, Fox News, The Daily mail, and NY Post are not reliable sources. Anything they say is thus irrelevant. We do not write articles, our sources write the articles. If it's not reported on by reliable sources then it doesn't exist. Some of the text you've added to the Netflix article is completely unsourced and appear to be your own personal point of view and original research as well as WP:SYNTH. You are allowed to have any opinion you want, but on Wikipedia it must be sourced to reliable secondary sources.
For example:
and "a growing — and bipartisan — list of Washington lawmakers"
The characterization of this is editorializing from unreliable sources and quoting the NY Post. We have Republicans and a single democrat, Tulsi Gabbard (who is set to leave office and isn't on good terms with the party anyways). Say this is "bipartisan" is at best a subjective POV at best. Instead simply stick to the facts and list the politicians and what they have said. Also, Ted Cruz said he's going to send a letter. That is a fact that he said that. We have no idea if any letter has been sent, or if there's any actual investigation.
After calls to completely remove the film, Netflix gave the film a maturity rating of TV-MA/R18 to reflect its sexual nature, meaning it is not available for children, and the recommended audience age listed is now 18+.
This is factually incorrect I believe the film always had that rating. I've heard it's actually relating to scenes of the family not any of the dancing. Also you have no source, the link goes to Netflix's site in general about their ratings system. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
And you're also making edits to Criticism of Netflix as well. Here you say the source is the film and that you don't need third party sources. However, everything you added is still your own personally original research and analysis. See WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:RS. To call something "sexual", or "adult-dance routine" or "simulated sex acts" is your own personal opinion and analysis. It may seem "obvious" to you that this is the case, but it may not be to others. You can dislike or rail against the film but WP:NOTHERE. That is not what Wikipedia is about.
Also @ HaeB: made a partial revert to Netflix, but it still contains the unsourced statement that Netflix rated the film because of the sexual content and in response to the controversy. Until there is a source that statement needs to be removed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9: my edits were added incrementally and with clear edit summaries. If you had any problem with any of them, you should have addressed them individually with clear justification.
Your statement regarding source reliability is factually incorrect per WP:Reliable Sources. As you made bulk revisions to the page, it is unclear which of your changes were supposedly a result of your error regarding the actual reliability status of the sources you mentioned, and which were attributed to other reasoning. In any case, The Hill and Fox News are both listed as Generally Reliable. The New York Post is listed as No Consensus. As I stated, I retained the Daily Mail source as the reporting was consistent. Discuss removing that single source if you want, but it is disruptive to remove an entire set of independently added and clearly described edits in bulk with no clear indication of what removals apply to what limited reasoning you provide.
The film itself is the source for the content information, and it is indisputable as clips from the film are widely available since the film's release. The dance routine is adult by any standard, does have simulated sex acts by any standard, and is sexual by any standard. The filmmakers themselves agree on this point. They state that this is the entire point of the movie, to decry the hypersexualization of children. The entire reason for the controversy is that they intentionally used real 11-year-old girls to act out and present this adult content. Describing the content of the film is not "railing" against the film.
Your example about the bipartisan list is refuted by the fact that the New York Post is not listed as unreliable, combined with the fact that you are clearly stating your own opinion over whether you personally consider Rep. Gabbard to be a Democrat or not. Also, Ted Cruz did send the letter to the Attorney General of the United States. It was dated September 11, 2020, and it was directly linked to in the New York Post article that you removed.
You complained that you didn't know what TV-MA meant in one of your several bulk reversions, so I provided a source for Netflix's maturity rating scheme. It is not clear how what you may have "heard" about Netflix's reasoning for maturity ratings on this film is relevant. In any case, I did not contribute that paragraph, I only updated the recommended age provided by Netflix. Doady ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The film itself is the source for the content information,
I'm merely attempting to explain Wikipedia guidelines, which is important because that is what guides pages. But it does seem that you are not interested in following those guidelines or writing about the film in a neutral manner. That falls under WP:NOTHERE. The suggestion to actually watch the film is important because people are largely basing their views on what people have said about the film, rather that the film itself. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, discussion and collaboration is a central part of Wikipedia. So after edits it's useful to discuss them and the rational for them in an attempt to build consensus see WP:BRD. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Netflix#Cuties and Talk:Criticism_of_Netflix#Cuties in regards to the edits I've made there. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Netflix shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. HaeB ( talk) 06:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@
HaeB:
I made multiple incremental edits with clear edit summaries. My contributions were bulk removed by @ Harizotoh9: based in part on false source reliability information in the related edit summaries. As the multiple edits were bulk removed, it is not clear which removals apply to which of the limited explanations provided in the edit summaries and which apply to the incorrect source reliability information. Additional discussion perpetuating the false source reliability information was added to my talk page by Harizotoh9. You perpetuated those false claims and participated in the bulk removals yourself.
I have patiently reverted several times asking for clear justification from you and Harizotoh9 for individual changes to my various edits. Neither of you has responded, and instead you both continue to bulk revert my contributions. As I am the editor requesting some clear reasoning for the changes you and Harizotoh9 continue to make, it appears that it is you and Harizotoh9 who are violating the three-revert rule.
I ask again: please provide actual clear individual justification for specific changes and stop bulk removing individually added and unrelated contributions. Note that your "roundup" of bulk removals included other editors' contributions as well.
Thank you Doady ( talk) 09:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ HaeB: I wonder if your opinion is any different now that @ Harizotoh9: has admitted that the bulk edits they were making based on disproved false claims are actually fully in line with their stated personal beliefs? Will you now add a helpful
icon to Harizotoh9's Talk page?
Doady (
talk)
21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Doady! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! A8 UDI 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable Sources for content. The Hill, Fox News, The Daily mail, and NY Post are not reliable sources. Anything they say is thus irrelevant. We do not write articles, our sources write the articles. If it's not reported on by reliable sources then it doesn't exist. Some of the text you've added to the Netflix article is completely unsourced and appear to be your own personal point of view and original research as well as WP:SYNTH. You are allowed to have any opinion you want, but on Wikipedia it must be sourced to reliable secondary sources.
For example:
and "a growing — and bipartisan — list of Washington lawmakers"
The characterization of this is editorializing from unreliable sources and quoting the NY Post. We have Republicans and a single democrat, Tulsi Gabbard (who is set to leave office and isn't on good terms with the party anyways). Say this is "bipartisan" is at best a subjective POV at best. Instead simply stick to the facts and list the politicians and what they have said. Also, Ted Cruz said he's going to send a letter. That is a fact that he said that. We have no idea if any letter has been sent, or if there's any actual investigation.
After calls to completely remove the film, Netflix gave the film a maturity rating of TV-MA/R18 to reflect its sexual nature, meaning it is not available for children, and the recommended audience age listed is now 18+.
This is factually incorrect I believe the film always had that rating. I've heard it's actually relating to scenes of the family not any of the dancing. Also you have no source, the link goes to Netflix's site in general about their ratings system. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
And you're also making edits to Criticism of Netflix as well. Here you say the source is the film and that you don't need third party sources. However, everything you added is still your own personally original research and analysis. See WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:RS. To call something "sexual", or "adult-dance routine" or "simulated sex acts" is your own personal opinion and analysis. It may seem "obvious" to you that this is the case, but it may not be to others. You can dislike or rail against the film but WP:NOTHERE. That is not what Wikipedia is about.
Also @ HaeB: made a partial revert to Netflix, but it still contains the unsourced statement that Netflix rated the film because of the sexual content and in response to the controversy. Until there is a source that statement needs to be removed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9: my edits were added incrementally and with clear edit summaries. If you had any problem with any of them, you should have addressed them individually with clear justification.
Your statement regarding source reliability is factually incorrect per WP:Reliable Sources. As you made bulk revisions to the page, it is unclear which of your changes were supposedly a result of your error regarding the actual reliability status of the sources you mentioned, and which were attributed to other reasoning. In any case, The Hill and Fox News are both listed as Generally Reliable. The New York Post is listed as No Consensus. As I stated, I retained the Daily Mail source as the reporting was consistent. Discuss removing that single source if you want, but it is disruptive to remove an entire set of independently added and clearly described edits in bulk with no clear indication of what removals apply to what limited reasoning you provide.
The film itself is the source for the content information, and it is indisputable as clips from the film are widely available since the film's release. The dance routine is adult by any standard, does have simulated sex acts by any standard, and is sexual by any standard. The filmmakers themselves agree on this point. They state that this is the entire point of the movie, to decry the hypersexualization of children. The entire reason for the controversy is that they intentionally used real 11-year-old girls to act out and present this adult content. Describing the content of the film is not "railing" against the film.
Your example about the bipartisan list is refuted by the fact that the New York Post is not listed as unreliable, combined with the fact that you are clearly stating your own opinion over whether you personally consider Rep. Gabbard to be a Democrat or not. Also, Ted Cruz did send the letter to the Attorney General of the United States. It was dated September 11, 2020, and it was directly linked to in the New York Post article that you removed.
You complained that you didn't know what TV-MA meant in one of your several bulk reversions, so I provided a source for Netflix's maturity rating scheme. It is not clear how what you may have "heard" about Netflix's reasoning for maturity ratings on this film is relevant. In any case, I did not contribute that paragraph, I only updated the recommended age provided by Netflix. Doady ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The film itself is the source for the content information,
I'm merely attempting to explain Wikipedia guidelines, which is important because that is what guides pages. But it does seem that you are not interested in following those guidelines or writing about the film in a neutral manner. That falls under WP:NOTHERE. The suggestion to actually watch the film is important because people are largely basing their views on what people have said about the film, rather that the film itself. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, discussion and collaboration is a central part of Wikipedia. So after edits it's useful to discuss them and the rational for them in an attempt to build consensus see WP:BRD. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Netflix#Cuties and Talk:Criticism_of_Netflix#Cuties in regards to the edits I've made there. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Netflix shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. HaeB ( talk) 06:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@
HaeB:
I made multiple incremental edits with clear edit summaries. My contributions were bulk removed by @ Harizotoh9: based in part on false source reliability information in the related edit summaries. As the multiple edits were bulk removed, it is not clear which removals apply to which of the limited explanations provided in the edit summaries and which apply to the incorrect source reliability information. Additional discussion perpetuating the false source reliability information was added to my talk page by Harizotoh9. You perpetuated those false claims and participated in the bulk removals yourself.
I have patiently reverted several times asking for clear justification from you and Harizotoh9 for individual changes to my various edits. Neither of you has responded, and instead you both continue to bulk revert my contributions. As I am the editor requesting some clear reasoning for the changes you and Harizotoh9 continue to make, it appears that it is you and Harizotoh9 who are violating the three-revert rule.
I ask again: please provide actual clear individual justification for specific changes and stop bulk removing individually added and unrelated contributions. Note that your "roundup" of bulk removals included other editors' contributions as well.
Thank you Doady ( talk) 09:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ HaeB: I wonder if your opinion is any different now that @ Harizotoh9: has admitted that the bulk edits they were making based on disproved false claims are actually fully in line with their stated personal beliefs? Will you now add a helpful
icon to Harizotoh9's Talk page?
Doady (
talk)
21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)