|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
In what sense is this a minor edit? Bus stop ( talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry—I'm pretty new to all this, and I guess I didn't fully understand the distinction. I mistakenly thought that by including more specific information from the previously cited source, it would be considered minor. Is there something I should do to remedy that? Elle Kpyros ( talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I have just reverted a number of your edits, across several articles. All of the reverted edits seemed to engage in questionable use of sources and heavy insertion of your personal point of view into Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:BRD, you are welcome to begin a discussion on any of the talk pages of the articles in question in order for a consensus to emerge about whether the content should be included in some form. If you do so, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -- JBL ( talk) 18:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
As I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia is built around reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. Your repeated argument that there are differences in intelligence between races is not based on a reliable source and does not summarize any part of Race and intelligence, so in the eyes of the Wikipedia community it is nothing more than your personal point of view. Please limit your talk page contributions to comments that are supported by our Policies and Guidelines, not your personal opinion. – dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Scribd is not a reliable source, especially for WP:BLP content. [2] - - MrX 🖋 11:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
References
There was no need to refer to me as "Perry Mason" and accuse me of "weasel wording"
Given that you were employing pseudo-legal justifications to introduce weasel-wording -- and not for the first time -- I'd say it was perfectly justified. If you don't like being informed that you're employing weasel words, you could always stop employing weasel words. -- Calton | Talk 07:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Truly.
Hello. I reverted your edit to the TBC talk page as it deleted many earlier comments. I would have pasted a copy of your comment back in after undoing the deletions, but it was not clear where to put it with the deleted material back in place. Just a notice so that you know your comment is "missing" and if you want to repost it you will have to copy it back in again. Sesquivalent ( talk) 06:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit [3] in which you deleted not only your own long comment but several others including those of folks disagreeing with you? Was this simply a slip of the typing finger? Generalrelative ( talk) 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing "contested" here - Ahmaud Arbery committed neither burglary nor theft and was murdered. The "defense attorneys" have no say here - the jury convicted their clients, the end - and what the murderers "believed" about Arbery is not evidence of anything. The cited sources are clear that there is no evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft. Should you again falsely suggest, imply, or state that there is evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft, I will request that you be topic-banned from this page under the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As a food scientist I welcome this addition. however, I think
"Caffeine, the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world, can have a diuretic effect in extremely high doses, but normal consumption does not produce significant excess urine compared to water. Despite the myth having been thoroughly debunked, many medical experts continue to claim that "coffee is dehydrating", misinformation that may have begun with a 1928 study."
is unnecessary as the entry should really only have the true statement and none of this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachotacl ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
in your recent edit of scottsboro boys, you changed altercation to assault. the source that you cite describes the altercation beginning when the sheriff's deputy hit Powell in the head. here is what the source says: "February of 1936, after testifying at Haywood Patterson's fourth trial, Powell was loaded into a car with Clarence Norris and Roy Wright. The three were handcuffed together in the backseat, while a sherrif and his deputy rode in front. Powell and the deputy got into an argument. The deputy hit Powell on his head. With his one free hand, Powell took a pen knife that had escaped detection during a search out of his pants and slashed the deputy's throat, wounding him. The sheriff stopped the car, got out, and fired a bullet at Powell (who, along with the others, had his hands in the air) which lodged in his brain. (The sheriff and deputy described the incident as an escape attempt). Powell survived, but suffered permanent brain damage. He had trouble speaking and hearing, memory loss, and weakness in his right leg and arm. On the operating table Powell told his mother, "I done give up...cause everybody in Alabama is down on me and is mad at me.""
Powell pleaded guilty to assault, a lesser charge than rape. but this is different from how your edit characterizes it. your source says that the deputy escalated an argument by assaulting the handcuffed Powell. Powell in turn attacked the deputy with a knife. the deputy in turn shot Powell in the face, permanently disabling him.
by framing it as Powell assaulting the deputy, you introduce error into the encyclopedia. your edit as it now stands should be reverted. Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 23:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I was going to write this on the articles talk page, but then realised its a little too "chatty", so thought I'd talk to you here:
Personally, I think the ECDC is overemphasing the sexual transmission / MSM aspect (or they know a lot more than is public knowledge - which I would highly doubt :P ).
I mean - they may be right, and transmission by other routes than sexual contacts may be quite rare (and thus, without hosts/ infected people with rapidly changing sexual partners, the outbreak would quickly die out). But they may also be wrong. And constantly harping on about "MSM" is going to have the effect that other people don't reckon they need to pay attention to this (I think the WHO does a better job at this in their assesment, where they point out that transmission in other communities is possible also).
Anyway, I can understand your sentiment in wanting to get relevant info out there (so as to avoid harm) - I feel the same way I guess (and yeah, can be frustrating :/ ). All the best, and hope the article shapes up in a way that seems acceptable to you :) !
Regards Sean Heron ( talk) 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring, AGF violations, apparent tag-teaming by Alexbrn. Thank you. I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Whilst "idiotic reasons" may not violate wp:npa and is tacking very close to it.
Also, per WP:ONUS it is down to you to get consensus for inclusion, not down to others to get for exclusion.
If you want to build wp:consensus, using language like "idiotic and incoherent "reasons"" will not achieve it. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Kire1975. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 17:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It took me a while to connect your username to your signature. Please consider being more transparent. Drmies ( talk) 03:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
See my (positive) response to your comments at Talk:Demographics_of_New_York_City#Need_for_updated_demographics.
Happy New Year! —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, your signature is a violation of WP:SIGFORGE as there is an actual user account User:Ellethebelle. Please change your signature. nableezy - 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Ekpyros ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Fixed issue with signature. I was directed to add this to the bottom of my page—hope I'm doing it correctly! Apologies to all! ElleThatBelle ( talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Sig is fixed. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ElleThatBelle ( talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Capital in the Twenty-First Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cassidy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, -- DPL bot ( talk) 15:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
In what sense is this a minor edit? Bus stop ( talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry—I'm pretty new to all this, and I guess I didn't fully understand the distinction. I mistakenly thought that by including more specific information from the previously cited source, it would be considered minor. Is there something I should do to remedy that? Elle Kpyros ( talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I have just reverted a number of your edits, across several articles. All of the reverted edits seemed to engage in questionable use of sources and heavy insertion of your personal point of view into Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:BRD, you are welcome to begin a discussion on any of the talk pages of the articles in question in order for a consensus to emerge about whether the content should be included in some form. If you do so, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -- JBL ( talk) 18:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
As I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia is built around reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. Your repeated argument that there are differences in intelligence between races is not based on a reliable source and does not summarize any part of Race and intelligence, so in the eyes of the Wikipedia community it is nothing more than your personal point of view. Please limit your talk page contributions to comments that are supported by our Policies and Guidelines, not your personal opinion. – dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Scribd is not a reliable source, especially for WP:BLP content. [2] - - MrX 🖋 11:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
References
There was no need to refer to me as "Perry Mason" and accuse me of "weasel wording"
Given that you were employing pseudo-legal justifications to introduce weasel-wording -- and not for the first time -- I'd say it was perfectly justified. If you don't like being informed that you're employing weasel words, you could always stop employing weasel words. -- Calton | Talk 07:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Truly.
Hello. I reverted your edit to the TBC talk page as it deleted many earlier comments. I would have pasted a copy of your comment back in after undoing the deletions, but it was not clear where to put it with the deleted material back in place. Just a notice so that you know your comment is "missing" and if you want to repost it you will have to copy it back in again. Sesquivalent ( talk) 06:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit [3] in which you deleted not only your own long comment but several others including those of folks disagreeing with you? Was this simply a slip of the typing finger? Generalrelative ( talk) 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing "contested" here - Ahmaud Arbery committed neither burglary nor theft and was murdered. The "defense attorneys" have no say here - the jury convicted their clients, the end - and what the murderers "believed" about Arbery is not evidence of anything. The cited sources are clear that there is no evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft. Should you again falsely suggest, imply, or state that there is evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft, I will request that you be topic-banned from this page under the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As a food scientist I welcome this addition. however, I think
"Caffeine, the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world, can have a diuretic effect in extremely high doses, but normal consumption does not produce significant excess urine compared to water. Despite the myth having been thoroughly debunked, many medical experts continue to claim that "coffee is dehydrating", misinformation that may have begun with a 1928 study."
is unnecessary as the entry should really only have the true statement and none of this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachotacl ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
in your recent edit of scottsboro boys, you changed altercation to assault. the source that you cite describes the altercation beginning when the sheriff's deputy hit Powell in the head. here is what the source says: "February of 1936, after testifying at Haywood Patterson's fourth trial, Powell was loaded into a car with Clarence Norris and Roy Wright. The three were handcuffed together in the backseat, while a sherrif and his deputy rode in front. Powell and the deputy got into an argument. The deputy hit Powell on his head. With his one free hand, Powell took a pen knife that had escaped detection during a search out of his pants and slashed the deputy's throat, wounding him. The sheriff stopped the car, got out, and fired a bullet at Powell (who, along with the others, had his hands in the air) which lodged in his brain. (The sheriff and deputy described the incident as an escape attempt). Powell survived, but suffered permanent brain damage. He had trouble speaking and hearing, memory loss, and weakness in his right leg and arm. On the operating table Powell told his mother, "I done give up...cause everybody in Alabama is down on me and is mad at me.""
Powell pleaded guilty to assault, a lesser charge than rape. but this is different from how your edit characterizes it. your source says that the deputy escalated an argument by assaulting the handcuffed Powell. Powell in turn attacked the deputy with a knife. the deputy in turn shot Powell in the face, permanently disabling him.
by framing it as Powell assaulting the deputy, you introduce error into the encyclopedia. your edit as it now stands should be reverted. Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 23:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I was going to write this on the articles talk page, but then realised its a little too "chatty", so thought I'd talk to you here:
Personally, I think the ECDC is overemphasing the sexual transmission / MSM aspect (or they know a lot more than is public knowledge - which I would highly doubt :P ).
I mean - they may be right, and transmission by other routes than sexual contacts may be quite rare (and thus, without hosts/ infected people with rapidly changing sexual partners, the outbreak would quickly die out). But they may also be wrong. And constantly harping on about "MSM" is going to have the effect that other people don't reckon they need to pay attention to this (I think the WHO does a better job at this in their assesment, where they point out that transmission in other communities is possible also).
Anyway, I can understand your sentiment in wanting to get relevant info out there (so as to avoid harm) - I feel the same way I guess (and yeah, can be frustrating :/ ). All the best, and hope the article shapes up in a way that seems acceptable to you :) !
Regards Sean Heron ( talk) 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring, AGF violations, apparent tag-teaming by Alexbrn. Thank you. I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Whilst "idiotic reasons" may not violate wp:npa and is tacking very close to it.
Also, per WP:ONUS it is down to you to get consensus for inclusion, not down to others to get for exclusion.
If you want to build wp:consensus, using language like "idiotic and incoherent "reasons"" will not achieve it. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Kire1975. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 17:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It took me a while to connect your username to your signature. Please consider being more transparent. Drmies ( talk) 03:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
See my (positive) response to your comments at Talk:Demographics_of_New_York_City#Need_for_updated_demographics.
Happy New Year! —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, your signature is a violation of WP:SIGFORGE as there is an actual user account User:Ellethebelle. Please change your signature. nableezy - 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Ekpyros ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Fixed issue with signature. I was directed to add this to the bottom of my page—hope I'm doing it correctly! Apologies to all! ElleThatBelle ( talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Sig is fixed. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ElleThatBelle ( talk) 17:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Capital in the Twenty-First Century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cassidy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, -- DPL bot ( talk) 15:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.