This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I would like to update the Holtzclaw, but respectfully I will not be biased and always have 3rd-party references. I will only state information that is in the reference and not make any judgements of character or guilt or innocence in the text. There is much going on right now with the case. There are secret evidence and hearings and I would like to flesh out the information so it is accurate and not biased. Please show me where I said anything or insinuated anything about a witchhunt. Holtzclaw was arrested under those conditions. He was also found guilty by a panel of jurors.
Dlruthenberg ( talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I took rid of these two hateful beliefs because like I said, Neo-Nazis usually doesn't talk negative about these certain group of people like they do with ethnic minorities like Blacks or Asians, Jews, Homosexuals, and Leftists. Yeah I actually did heard a White Power punk song about some fictional character who I think her name was "Mary" and the singer mentioned she have Down Syndrome, but despite this, Ableism is for the most part a rare topic for them to even bring up in both their Protesting and Music, along-side Antiziganism, which honestly why would they bring-up that like 24/7, like this was the targets of the original Nazis, but not these so-called "Modern" Nazis, plus when does these Gypsies even started getting attention during our current generation, like not the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but since like 2001, since 9/11. I just heard in Canada, there were Neo-Nazis protesting against Romani people but back in 1991. So really they might bring-up these groups for the sake of those from WWII, but really it more necessary to just have "Ultranationalism, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, and Antisemitism", because those are what they mainly speaks up against people with. Ks159081 ( talk) 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Gary,
I have been editing the Sulekha page on Wiki and the content I posted twice for the about section has been rejected stating that it was promotional. However, I've removed the points which I felt was promotional and made the necessary changes You can find the edit below and could you please let me know if this is okay. If not, it would be great if you could let me know which of these points felt promotional.
"Sulekha, led by Param Parameswaran (Chairman) and Satya Prabhakar (CEO), is one of India’s largest and fastest growing digital platforms in the local services and listings ecosystem. Sulekha uses data and technology to match the needs of 30+ M users with 3+ M verified local service businesses across 40 cities and 500+ categories. Sulekha helps users find relevant local businesses across categories like coaching, home and office service, entertainment, health and wellness, moving and packing, and training. Sulekha understands the needs of users in detail and matches them to relevant, verified local businesses, thus reducing the time and hassle of finding a local service provider.
On the other hand, Sulekha helps SMEs grow their business by marketing their services in their city/locality and category to find targeted prospects.
Sulekha serves Indians in India and the US, and has operations across major cities in India. Sulekha’s four global investors are GIC (Singapore), Norwest Venture Partners (Palo Alto), Mitsui (Tokyo), and IMG (New York)."
Sorry in advance if this isn't the right way to do this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindl1989 ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Fascism". 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 12 September 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Fascism, 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.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Continuing Is settlepi considered a reliable source? Ip7 ( talk) 05:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Ip7 ( talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
You've accused me of whitewashing [1]. I'm sure it's a controversial article with people on one or both sides regularly trying to do... I don't know. But check my contributions: my global contribs
I don't edit articles about identitarianism or even about anything related.
Secondly, if you're going to revert, you need to give a reason. "Whitewashing" is not a reason. That would be like me reverting you and giving a summary of "Wrong!"
My edits came with an explanation in the edit summary *and* on the Talk page. I explained my edits because it was possible to justify them. If it's possible to justify your revert, then please explain it. Otherwise your revert should not stand.
And then you also reverted my edit about the Gurk article. Read the source. Gurk interviews the other guy. The other guy says (at the very end) that there's a risk that the nazis posing as identitarians online might make racism hip and modern. The text of the article is clearly wrong, but you reverted me because you somehow prefer the incorrect version. I'd be interested to hear your explanation (but you gave none, not in the edit summary, not on the Talk page). Great floors ( talk) 22:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yea, I was undoing the IP user, its edit showed as the most recent when I did it, not yours. I may have started it, then stepped away for a minute . I dunno. The Gremlins. Thanks. :) TheValeyard ( talk) 02:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure how you get notified of changes so I am adding a comment here. I have added 2 sections to /info/en/?search=Talk:Alfresco_(software) to discuss what it will take to remove the tags. When you get a chance, please review them and respond. I am trying to improve that article after it was woefully out-of-date prior to my making edits and want to make sure that what is written is in compliance. Pie1120 ( talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You rolled back the date of birth. It is noted in the copyright entry of one of his songs [1], as well as his real name (corrected - I stated Sanders, it's acually Thomas). You can hear it's him by actually listen to the song [2] Bolt24 ( talk) 10:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello! Should we not reference Mary Bird Land as a way to prove the area he is claiming? I did not place the reference to reference McHenry. Please advise. Thanks! Geejayen ( talk) 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
about Cloud Power (AirHES) - is Indiegogo link a reliable source like this? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cloud-power-clean-water-and-energy-from-clouds#/ Andrew Kazantsev ( talk) 10:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Kazantsev ( talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC) OK, thanks. But then, how can I message about this global solution for energy and water supply? Maybe my patent could be enough as reliable sources? [2]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding user:Leysure. The thread is User Leysure, WP:SPA for spamming. Jeh ( talk) 10:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All I added was that there were riots. You can't deny that rioting took place. Nicholas S8 ( talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Greyfell, I work for the International House of Prayer and my department head has encouraged me to update our page. I see that I will need to study up as if I were creating a new page, since the site has not been updated since 2010, apparently. Just one question and then I'll study up: I emailed our registrar's office and got the latest figures on enrollment at our school. What better source could that be? Do I need to wait for someone in the independent press to write a news story on our enrollment in order to get it updated? I am not intending to be contrary, I simply do not understand the ropes here. ElizabethJohnson1949 ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete a near essay for the rye highschool page, I am a school admin and this info is all factual. And no the football team does not make playoffs every year and baseball hasn't won state in 4 years. Thank you please revert my editing. Equinoble ( talk) 00:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You are just a huge liberal, pushing your beliefs by changing info on numerous subjects, ( ive read your previous "talk" articles) also, you are talking out your ass right now because I changed some pages info cause it was full of error. Also, you won't let me comment on the high school wiki page because I don't have "references". Where tf is the refrence that the football team goes to state "every year", or that the schools attendance is 280?? Not even close. This just shows to prove that Wikipedia is just a bunch of editors steering the beliefs of people to fit thier agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinoble ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Greyfell. Thank you for your review of my edits of the page Jeff McWaters. Would you please review my changes to make sure it is written in a neutral manner so we can have the top banner removed? I am a new contributor and appreciate the help! Thanks. Kamillabirgitte ( talk) 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
landeda job,
...was exposed to entrepreneurship at an early age...,
...was proven ineffective...,
...focused on meeting the healthcare needs...etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch might be helpful, especially WP:BUZZWORD. This still of writing is common in corporate press releases and similar, but it is not neutral, nor is it compliant with Wikipedia's expectations for a formal tone.
You might be interested in this edit [3] after seeing this edit [4] by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F. This seems to be some how associated with IP 141.131.2.3, as it seems they signed them both as "MC", immediately suggesting a sock. Further evidence in article with this revert [5] in history here. [6] Considering 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F has made just four edits Special:Contributions/2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F on the one day, suggest this is highly likely. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 06:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I would definitely like you to take a look at my post/suggestion on the PewDiePie talk page. I directly reference you and your reversions here. I would also like to clarify that I have no ill-intent with what I wrote in that section; it's really just more of a general frustration with reversions of sourced/referenced material. Best wishes, Soulbust ( talk) 10:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you restore the material you just took out. Yes it might be petty or whatever but we are trying to get consensus about what yo do. Your unilateral intervention is not helpful. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you fairly recently edited the ThinkProgress article. Since then, however, over the past few months, a lot of editing has been going on at the article, and now there is a disagreement on the Talk page about whether the current version of the article is balanced or not, as well as whether the content throughout the article is appropriate/optimal for the article. If you can spare some time to analyze the article and the current discussions on the talk page, I'm sure everyone would be interested in your input, either way. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback on my recent edits to the IoT page. Just wanted to drop in and let you know that I'll be working on the article bit by bit for the next few weeks(months? however long it takes.) If things seem unfinished, it's because they are and I just haven't gotten around to them yet. I appreciate your help in making the article better and wanted you to know how my editing style works so that it doesn't alarm you when there are gaps. -- Baumergrl ( talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this: Fine, you're a regular. Cut the shit at Order of the Arrow. You should know better. That's not a template. -- Jayron 32 02:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Cut the shitand boilerplate template, both for content you haven't even looked at, you need to try harder. Grayfell ( talk) 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
You've raised a point that makes this... not fun, so I'm going to give a more serious response. If you're not interested in reading this that way, don't bother responding at all.
We're not on the same level, so you will always be the "winner", here. Your actions have weight, and when you treat this as a joke, it has an edge that you cannot ever control. Sorry, that's just how it works. Even if this were a completely empty threat, getting blocked is scary to some people. When you threaten a stranger, justifiably, toothlessly, it doesn't matter, you don't get to decide how other people take it. You don't have to agree with this, you can laugh at me if you want, but you do have to accept that other people treat this seriously. I let you know I was annoyed by your behavior. So fucking what? What do you gain by dragging this on? You fully made your point, so don't play shitty, dehumanizing troll games over it. No, you didn't block me, but you could've. No, I don't think you would've blocked me for this without a better reason, but I don't know you, and you don't know me. You have the power here, not me, so my assumptions about your behavior are pretty much irrelevant. Grayfell ( talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. The Order of the Arrow article now presents, accurately, that some Native Americans approve of the use of Native American elements as part of the organization, while some Native Americans criticize this as inauspicious cultural appropriation. Previously, the article presented the situation as if all Native Americans criticized the OA for cultural appropriation. As Native Americans are not a monolithic group and there is diversity of opinion, the article now properly reflects the reality of the situation. As for labeling the last section of the article with a banner saying "This section contains content written like an advertisement," this criticism is inapplicable, as if the section were advertising the OA, the section would not include robust perspective of criticism that is many times longer than the previous version of the criticism that was present on the page. An advertisement for an organization would not present such criticism; instead, the section provides multiple perspectives. Merely showing the OA's perspective is not an advertisement, just as showing the perspective of detractors is not an advertisement for that position. I humbly request that you therefore remove the "Written like an advertisement tag". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceandHonor ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. Equilibrium103 ( talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Greyfell:
I presume that you saw my comment on the Talk page of the article on Arthur Jensen, in which I said that I might edit the article when I had reviewed sources. I would not make a meaningful edit without consulting a source other than my memory. The very minor edit I made with regard to the verb "has had" was done because that verb implied that Jensen had, and still has, an interest in music. This was true when Jensen was alive, but now, after he has died, a past tense verb is appropriate. I fail to see why you would revert that. The edit of inserting some identification for Melvin Connor was made because, as I was reading the article, I did not know who Melvin Connor was, so I interrupted my reading, to find out, by going to the article on Connor. It puzzled me that he would be treated as a knowledgeable critic, and even quoted at length, without some indication of his qualifications to offer criticisms of Jensen's work. So, I put those qualifications in, so that other readers would know that Connor was an informed professional, who could reasonably discuss Jensen's work. I don't understand why that would be reverted either. My reasons for these minor edits were to improve the quality of the article. They were not relevant to its content or to any controversy about Jensen's viewpoints. Please restore these edits.
I have read and done mostly minor edits on Wikipedia since about 1993. I hope it is appropriate in this space to explain my recent activities on Wikipedia. I might assume that you have noticed that I have been reading the articles relevant to racial differences, and adding comments to some of the Talk pages. My doctoral dissertation in psychology was on racial prejudice, and I am interested in how such topics are discussed, and how they can be discussed scientifically. I am reading these articles because I have recently been rather forcibly exposed to the fact that racial differences are being treated, in almost all of the current professional literature, as if they have no empirical reality. The phrase that seems to have become part of the standard definition of race is "social construct" and, as a social construct, the concept of race is being imbued, or has been defined, as a concept which includes intrinsic implications relevant to social hierarchy, social class, and unjust but socially ascribed inferiority. This word is being used as a normative concept, like caste. To me, this is objectionable, because if the word race is not usable, there seems to be other word that could be used to discuss the actual empirical differences among various populations of humanity. It is my intention, after I have read the relevant articles, to try to improve them by inserting discussion that acknowledges and points out the differences between empirical claims, which are scientifically verifiable or falsifiable, and normatively loaded language, which does have intrinsic meanings relevant to ascribed social rank.
I am very careful to write professionally when I edit articles, although I thought the occasional silly remark on a Talk page might be allowed. (I have read a lot of silly remarks on Talk pages.) However, what I said about Neanderthal ancestry of Europeans, and its contribution to European skin and hair coloring, is not speculation or original research -- there have been extensive publications about it. I learned about it from reading the webpage Science Daily, and some other sources. And if I give as an example, the usage of races of horses as equivalent to breeds of horses, and refer to the varieties called breeds and landraces among virtually all species, as an example of how the word race might be treated as an empirical concept, that is not a silly remark. If the word race is lost to empirical science, then some other word, such as ethnic type is going to have to be substituted for it. I would rather rehabilitate a word from ordinary English, than require ordinary people to adopt a piece of jargon in order to discuss the fascinating varieties within our species.
You can check my qualifications to discuss these things on (Redacted). When my grandfather was asked about his ancestry, he used to say he was a mongrel, and so am I, so I don't really feel like I'm racially superior to anybody. Before I was a psychologist, I was an English teacher and a student of philosophy.
I hope to consult you in future, when I undertake a serious edit, as I certainly recognize that these topics are very fraught with controversies. Thank you for reading my stuff. Janice Vian, Ph.D. ( talk) 03:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations.At most, "race" has a non-firm basis in biology. If you disagree with this newer academic consensus, well, okay, but Wikipedia isn't the place to fight this battle. If you disagree that this is the current academic consensus, you'll need to find actual, recent sources discussing this.
Just wanted to express my gratitude for your recognition of the cleanup I did on Catalonia. Thank you. :) Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. It would be useful to me if you could point to what exactly the problem with the new edit was, rather than a blanket approach, I presume in here somewhere? . . In 2017 Patterson was awarded New Zealand Institute of Architects Gold Medal, presented to a single architect each year. The citation notes his practice’s distinctive projects. [5] [6] Andrew Barrie, Professor of Design at the School of Architecture and Planning University of Auckland says that Patterson's not needing to fit on or conform gives him a freedom expressed in his eye for materiality, space and light which drives his ability to produce buildings which connect internationally. [7] Patterson is the youngest architect to receive this award. [8] The Gold medal is quite an achievement and I wanted to add. There is no conflict of interest other than being a fan of NZ architecture I am trying to be as objective as possible e.g the inclusion of quotes from academia should I remove this? Andrew Barrie, Professor of Design at the School of Architecture and Planning University of Auckland says that Patterson's not needing to fit on or conform gives him a freedom expressed in his eye for materiality, space and light which drives his ability to produce buildings which connect internationally. The rest was new awards info and interesting commentary on Maori references in his work. EditorforGS ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if previously working at The School of Architecture and Planning is a conflict or not? I have also worked on developing Patterson's website design which is where I came into contact with this body of work (this was 2 years ago and I was paid for that specific project, note I am not a copy person my background is design). I am basing the page on /info/en/?search=Ian_Athfield which has quite detailed information as do other notable NZ architects e.g /info/en/?search=Pete_Bossley and /info/en/?search=Peter_Beaven
Regarding the Len Lye building I am not sure if you can split the person from the building when the person in question is an architect and that is why they are of note? EditorforGS ( talk).
No I don't understand. I have asked for clarification on what you considered spam from what I have written and I have not received that. I also don't understand the new banner. The only content there is what you have edited. Yes I was paid 2 years ago, yes I know AP the NZ architectural community is small and that is when I noticed his wiki page needed some work (not many NZ's have a wiki page and I thought it would be handy to know how to edit). No I don't edit other peoples pages, quite frankly copy is not my natural medium and I find it difficult and having to deal with this sort of thing doesn't help. Natalie@GoodSense is me, I project manage websites under this name. The companion articles are a pretty good indicator of other NZ architectural pages, and yes AP is young, that is what makes him special, as in being the youngest ever recipient of a Gold Medal. Is there a mediator editor I can take this to, that can look at my original copy and your edits and this dialogue as I find your tone and actions bullying and unreasonable. ````Editor for GS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorforGS ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to see you are giving me some specifics and also that you have moderated your tone. Re: There's plenty of more I could say about this. As a general rule, awards should be contextualized by reliable, independent, sources. This means that press releases or similar from the NZIA are not sufficient for establishing the award as encyclopedically significant. Having won an award is not, by itself, informative unless there is a neutral way for readers to assess the award's significance. This needs to be established the same way all substantial information needs to be established on Wikipedia: through reliable sources. Many of these sources do not, at a glance, meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Architecture Now's about page does not fill me with confidence that it has the "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" required for a source. Neither does their publisher's. If we don't have a foundation of reliable sources, all these details start to seem unbalanced and disproportionate. We already know he's "not reticent about proclaiming his ambition and ability". With that in mind, how many of these sources are reliable, and how many are built out of press releases? How can we use reliable sources to create a neutral overview of him and his work?
The NZIA is NZ's only and major independent Architectural body and our only significant award givers (also why they are noted in the pages of other NZ architects I sited). These awards are our major awards - happy to add this detail, and link to their website rather than press releases. Ditto Architecture Now - we don't have many architectural commentators, most of these are academics or well known architectural journalists, I think they would be pulled up pretty fast by the NZ architectural community if they didn't fact check! What is a neutral way for readers to assess the award's significance? How do small countries establish this credibility? These are our architectural media. I added "not reticent about proclaiming his ambition and ability" as a way to balance the commentary. Andrew is known for his flashy architecture and his flashy nature. As this was a comment by the NZIA on his recent Gold Medal win I thought it a good way to acknowledge this. Also, although not all the projects are on wikipedia as individual projects, some are very important to NZ architecture should be retained as notable projects. I willing admit to being an amateur at editing in wikipages and probably making mistakes, however I do think APs contribution to NZ architecture is important and that he is somewhat outside the community made this an interesting project for me. I was trying very hard to be impartial which is why I wanted advice on what factual information was problematical to you, rather than a whole lot of assumptions based on web work I did years ago (at what point does working for someone cease to be a problem?) Re: I did this with the hope that you would begin to propose changes on the article's talk page, as I've requested both here, and through the boilerplate message on your talk page. This way we can address each of these issue in more detail. Could we maybe revert to the copy that was OK for years and then carry on? Beacuse jeepers I don't have endless time to do this. Please note I am also an artist and wanted to add some much needed female NZ artist pages eventually, this was my learning curve, I will now think twice about that as NZ art commentary is much more sketchy that that of architects. ``EditorforGS|EditorforGS`` still don't think I get the signing thing . ..
EditorforGS —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |
You can't revert my edits just because they contradict your political stance. Go take your alt-right beliefs somewhere else.
Gr4nder (
talk)
03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my
Nathan Damigo page. Could you help me on it? I know that it is notable, but I need help on it.
JustAPoliticalNerd (
talk)
00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
See my latest edit on the talk-page. He is now using this account [7]
Can you re-open an SPI for Ben Steigmann / Blastikus? [8]
[9] is also Ben. (evidence in this edit on his Wikiversity Project against Wikipedia [10]). 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
See this if you are interested [11] 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on your victory. It will be like fucking last year— Lauren Southern's a libertarian because I'm an IP address versus esteemed members. (Don't bother replying to my talk page—I'm check here for your response—if any). 45.72.224.206 ( talk) 04:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Dang!
Why did you have to reply to my post! Now I have gained a little faith that I might have an appreciable effect on this article!
"You're going to "lose" this one, because we can't figure out what the heck you're talking about."
It might have something to do with the fact that the post was reverted only 17 minutes after it was posted.
"If you want to talk about the urine-dumping incident, you're going to need to explain what the problem is with the three sources used for that section."
That's the problem with WP talk pages. If I posted an update to the section: "did she really get urine poured on her or was that soda pop?" it's unlikely to be read. Sections don't seem to be read, and most simply re-hash old stuff in new sections—it's the WP way! I presume you read my post before you reverted it—I re-mentioned my concerns; but okay, I'll waste time here. I saw the YouTube video. Now I know it's a primary source and WP would rather it be re-iterated by an RS, but fuck! I'm already fed up with webpages that take minutes to dl, dump a lot of advertising shit, and either say little and/or stuff that looks like a copy and paste from another source.
Presumably there were no Sun, G&M, or Yahoo reporters there—not even freelancers. Did any fly from Toronto or Silicon Valley, or was their report based on the YouTube video?
Now presumably, in the absence of RS as well as WP's abhorrence of primary sources, the urine thing should be removed; but, of course, it wasn't, nor will it be. I ran into similar shit in the article over Southern's alleged Libertarianism. Finally WP has moved on it, but oh so slowly and with much aggravation.
The freaking weird thing about it is that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article has an embedded video where urine was more likely tossed at Southern in another latter protest, and it might be because someone was inspired by the flawed article here.
"Vaguely pointing to a bunch of blatantly unreliable sources"
Funny how the WP article on RS describes WP as an un-RS. The idea is that such articles might have sources that could be for sources here. Indeed, one of RW's aims is to be a supplement to WP.
"You are also, of course, free to make an account, if you want."
I have, and I don't want to use it on the computer I'm using, and no, it's not for sockpuppetry.
My history of vandalism of the article was to remove the alleged libertarianism—not her party candidacy but her libertarianism. It was reverted, and the page is now protected, so it's the talk page I went to. It seems the editors got the message, but for so long this Trump supporter who ridiculed Gary Johnson was described by WP as a libertarian.
I've similarly vandalized the WQ article of wikiquote:Lauren Southern by accurately quoting from one of her YouTube videos—to counter the perception that she's such a badass anti-feminist hero.
I can understand why the article is protected—not that it will help much—but fuck, it's annoying when I make a post in the talk page I put a few 10s of minutes into creating and it's reverted so quickly. It's why I rarely go back to this article.
Not that RationalWiki is much better as an Wikipedia:Alternative outlets—it too can get heated, but it might be better if I improve the article there. This might be easier as Lauren Southern is mostly noted for being alt-right I could use a few sources here and add them there.
I'm surprised that ED has a half-decent article about her—another urine thing and the description of her "book."
I might work on RationalWiki's article of Lauren Southern and WQ. Who knows, I might do a Simple English article.
I might, just might, create an alternate account for articles on Lauren Southern, but after this post, my interest in this article will likely significantly wane for perhaps almost another year.
Another possibility in the RW article is a subsection on the WP article. RW does that with CP at times such as https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Donald_Trump_achievements or https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Differences_with_Wikipedia
Anyway, I was likely in error to make that post in the talk page. Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and all that. Though an alternate account might help. Who knows.
But for now, the best thing for me is to withdraw and leave the Lauren Southern article—and talk page—to the experts.
Good morning.
45.72.224.206 ( talk) 06:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
1.
"I think this is too long for the point you're trying to make. When writing for an audience of impatient, pedantic assholes like me and most other Wikipedia editors, you should tailor your message accordingly."
Andrew Schlafly, if I understand correctly, refers to being concise and against talk, talk, talk. But hey, you're busy. (I can only imagine the shit regular editors like you have to deal with.)
From one pedantic asshole to another, please read this at your convenience. I'm in the lifeboat now.
2.
"Just saying they exist... not so much."
It is a talk page.
3.
"You stated that "her gender is still an issue"... but it's an occasional source of vandalism. That's about it."
The article says "In October 2016, Southern had her gender legally changed to male as part of a video produced for Rebel Media to show the ease of the new gender ID laws."
The RebelMedia report merely headlines "Lauren Southern Becomes a Man!" and reports "According to the Government of Canada I'm literally a dude now! Just watch the video."
I just watched the video again and it's not even a government office at first! It's a frickin' health clinic! In the 8:03 video at 2:22 she says "about a year ago" when asked when she started to identify as a man, and yeah, at 2:42, she says –it's even on the screen—"I'm, um, attracted to girls."
3:19—Clair Vaughan Medical clinic—her address understandably is blocked out—but Clair Vaughan is in the pre-1998 amalgamated borders in Toronto which is while not the most liberal part of the city, it definitely ain't Ford country—where she might not have had the same success conning the receptionist. (FWIW, it's near Bathurst, the trad Jewish area, and likely a few km from the Junction, where Michael Coren—a bit of a firebrand himself—more in the past—and a writer of many books—most likely over 90 pages. Don't worry about doxing: the area is high density, and Coren has referred to the Junction a few times in his Toronto broadcasts.)
As health cards are a provincial matter, she is easily arguably at best not recognized as a man by the federal government, but provincial, and this is only in regards to medical insurance. Her driver's license might describe her as a woman. Ditto her passport—given she travels—I wonder how she'd get into Trump's America with a passport that'd describe her as a man. I suppose the Italians listed her as a woman too.
If instead of a health card, she listed as a man for a library card, would WP cite it as a source for it's claim of legal manliness?
Also the document says "application." It doesn't say whether or not the ministry turned her down. There's no shots of her new health card and what it describes her gender as—assuming she even got a card—she might have been refused and didn't re-apply yet.
https://files.ontario.ca/thumbnail-healthcard-illustrated.jpg
Another reason for the removal:
Gender on Health Cards and Driver's Licences
https://news.ontario.ca/mgs/en/2016/06/gender-on-health-cards-and-drivers-licences.html
June 29, 2016 2:05 P.M.
Ministry of Government and Consumer Services
"From June 13 onward, sex designation is no longer displayed on the Ontario health card. Upon their next renewal, cardholders will receive a card that does not indicate sex."
4. "Conservapedia is great for laughs, so let it be what it's good at."
Uh huh. Thought I'd mention the other wikis in order to get the perhaps-too-politically motivated (myself included) alternative outlets for their(/our) energies. Not that Schlafly would tolerate their editing, and I excluded the newer more racist wikis that yammer on about her alleged Jewishness.
5.
"I'm guessing you're the same IP who already brought up the soda/piss argument before,"
As well as whether or not she's a Libertarian. Took a while for me to pull myself out of the mud, too.
6. "but we don't really second guess sources like this,"
Apparently not.
7. "Using this topic as the battleground to debate how Wikipedia handles sources is totally ridiculous."
I don't think I am. I'm simply attacking these sources, or more aptly, these particular alleged sources, not WP policy in general.
8. "Let's talk about that and only that on the article's talk page, so something can be done."
Eliminate the bad reports and with it references to the urine incident as well as her alleged legal change of gender?
Fat fookin' chance!
I already have. It's ignored.
It fatigues me.
9. "If you know of a reliable source for the second piss incident, great."
It was intended as a (relatively) quick reference to a source to possible sources.
I currently have no reliable sources; the article has no reliable sources. So let's remove these suspect links and thus references to the alleged incident.
10. "We already have at least one, if not more, aggressive sock puppets trying to make this into a shrine to how serious political business Southern is."
Oh yeah? what sources has he used, if any? How deep are his analysis?
11. "Copypasting unflattering reviews of her self-published book to the talk page is adding even more noise."
But what if the review is by someone at RebelMedia—which apparently is considered a RS by WP? Shall I look for ED's source and if valid, put it in the article?
So should it even be called a book?
The article describes her as a "book author"
A Google News search of her "book" title lead me to this:
The deplorables have arrived in Washington, but they're not exactly united
http://mashable.com/2017/01/19/deploraball-deplorables-trump-inauguration/#Dkp32YaLt5qX
"Lauren Southern, author of a 90-page self-published book called Barbarians: How Baby Boomers, Immigrants, and Islam Screwed My Generation"
Fellow Danish descendant and occasional hair bleacher Iggy Pop wrote a book ( Here's a 35 NYT review of it by Robert Palmer—no Wayback Machines needed here.) and nowhere in his WP article is he described as an "author." I guess Iggy's so more noted for other things that it kind of slipped the minds of the editors to put it in the article. (and to be fair, it was co-written, just like Art of the Deal)
So let's remove the "book author" reference and keep the writer categories as she has written at least a glorified pamplet.
12. "If the article's length is proportional to how significant she actually is, it's going to be a pretty short article."
Yep. There was already a Nom for AfD.
45.72.224.206 ( talk) 17:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell. 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)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I would like to update the Holtzclaw, but respectfully I will not be biased and always have 3rd-party references. I will only state information that is in the reference and not make any judgements of character or guilt or innocence in the text. There is much going on right now with the case. There are secret evidence and hearings and I would like to flesh out the information so it is accurate and not biased. Please show me where I said anything or insinuated anything about a witchhunt. Holtzclaw was arrested under those conditions. He was also found guilty by a panel of jurors.
Dlruthenberg ( talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I took rid of these two hateful beliefs because like I said, Neo-Nazis usually doesn't talk negative about these certain group of people like they do with ethnic minorities like Blacks or Asians, Jews, Homosexuals, and Leftists. Yeah I actually did heard a White Power punk song about some fictional character who I think her name was "Mary" and the singer mentioned she have Down Syndrome, but despite this, Ableism is for the most part a rare topic for them to even bring up in both their Protesting and Music, along-side Antiziganism, which honestly why would they bring-up that like 24/7, like this was the targets of the original Nazis, but not these so-called "Modern" Nazis, plus when does these Gypsies even started getting attention during our current generation, like not the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but since like 2001, since 9/11. I just heard in Canada, there were Neo-Nazis protesting against Romani people but back in 1991. So really they might bring-up these groups for the sake of those from WWII, but really it more necessary to just have "Ultranationalism, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, and Antisemitism", because those are what they mainly speaks up against people with. Ks159081 ( talk) 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Gary,
I have been editing the Sulekha page on Wiki and the content I posted twice for the about section has been rejected stating that it was promotional. However, I've removed the points which I felt was promotional and made the necessary changes You can find the edit below and could you please let me know if this is okay. If not, it would be great if you could let me know which of these points felt promotional.
"Sulekha, led by Param Parameswaran (Chairman) and Satya Prabhakar (CEO), is one of India’s largest and fastest growing digital platforms in the local services and listings ecosystem. Sulekha uses data and technology to match the needs of 30+ M users with 3+ M verified local service businesses across 40 cities and 500+ categories. Sulekha helps users find relevant local businesses across categories like coaching, home and office service, entertainment, health and wellness, moving and packing, and training. Sulekha understands the needs of users in detail and matches them to relevant, verified local businesses, thus reducing the time and hassle of finding a local service provider.
On the other hand, Sulekha helps SMEs grow their business by marketing their services in their city/locality and category to find targeted prospects.
Sulekha serves Indians in India and the US, and has operations across major cities in India. Sulekha’s four global investors are GIC (Singapore), Norwest Venture Partners (Palo Alto), Mitsui (Tokyo), and IMG (New York)."
Sorry in advance if this isn't the right way to do this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindl1989 ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Fascism". 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 12 September 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Fascism, 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.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Continuing Is settlepi considered a reliable source? Ip7 ( talk) 05:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Ip7 ( talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell,
You've accused me of whitewashing [1]. I'm sure it's a controversial article with people on one or both sides regularly trying to do... I don't know. But check my contributions: my global contribs
I don't edit articles about identitarianism or even about anything related.
Secondly, if you're going to revert, you need to give a reason. "Whitewashing" is not a reason. That would be like me reverting you and giving a summary of "Wrong!"
My edits came with an explanation in the edit summary *and* on the Talk page. I explained my edits because it was possible to justify them. If it's possible to justify your revert, then please explain it. Otherwise your revert should not stand.
And then you also reverted my edit about the Gurk article. Read the source. Gurk interviews the other guy. The other guy says (at the very end) that there's a risk that the nazis posing as identitarians online might make racism hip and modern. The text of the article is clearly wrong, but you reverted me because you somehow prefer the incorrect version. I'd be interested to hear your explanation (but you gave none, not in the edit summary, not on the Talk page). Great floors ( talk) 22:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yea, I was undoing the IP user, its edit showed as the most recent when I did it, not yours. I may have started it, then stepped away for a minute . I dunno. The Gremlins. Thanks. :) TheValeyard ( talk) 02:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure how you get notified of changes so I am adding a comment here. I have added 2 sections to /info/en/?search=Talk:Alfresco_(software) to discuss what it will take to remove the tags. When you get a chance, please review them and respond. I am trying to improve that article after it was woefully out-of-date prior to my making edits and want to make sure that what is written is in compliance. Pie1120 ( talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You rolled back the date of birth. It is noted in the copyright entry of one of his songs [1], as well as his real name (corrected - I stated Sanders, it's acually Thomas). You can hear it's him by actually listen to the song [2] Bolt24 ( talk) 10:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello! Should we not reference Mary Bird Land as a way to prove the area he is claiming? I did not place the reference to reference McHenry. Please advise. Thanks! Geejayen ( talk) 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
about Cloud Power (AirHES) - is Indiegogo link a reliable source like this? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cloud-power-clean-water-and-energy-from-clouds#/ Andrew Kazantsev ( talk) 10:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Kazantsev ( talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC) OK, thanks. But then, how can I message about this global solution for energy and water supply? Maybe my patent could be enough as reliable sources? [2]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding user:Leysure. The thread is User Leysure, WP:SPA for spamming. Jeh ( talk) 10:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All I added was that there were riots. You can't deny that rioting took place. Nicholas S8 ( talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Greyfell, I work for the International House of Prayer and my department head has encouraged me to update our page. I see that I will need to study up as if I were creating a new page, since the site has not been updated since 2010, apparently. Just one question and then I'll study up: I emailed our registrar's office and got the latest figures on enrollment at our school. What better source could that be? Do I need to wait for someone in the independent press to write a news story on our enrollment in order to get it updated? I am not intending to be contrary, I simply do not understand the ropes here. ElizabethJohnson1949 ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete a near essay for the rye highschool page, I am a school admin and this info is all factual. And no the football team does not make playoffs every year and baseball hasn't won state in 4 years. Thank you please revert my editing. Equinoble ( talk) 00:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You are just a huge liberal, pushing your beliefs by changing info on numerous subjects, ( ive read your previous "talk" articles) also, you are talking out your ass right now because I changed some pages info cause it was full of error. Also, you won't let me comment on the high school wiki page because I don't have "references". Where tf is the refrence that the football team goes to state "every year", or that the schools attendance is 280?? Not even close. This just shows to prove that Wikipedia is just a bunch of editors steering the beliefs of people to fit thier agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinoble ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Greyfell. Thank you for your review of my edits of the page Jeff McWaters. Would you please review my changes to make sure it is written in a neutral manner so we can have the top banner removed? I am a new contributor and appreciate the help! Thanks. Kamillabirgitte ( talk) 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
landeda job,
...was exposed to entrepreneurship at an early age...,
...was proven ineffective...,
...focused on meeting the healthcare needs...etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch might be helpful, especially WP:BUZZWORD. This still of writing is common in corporate press releases and similar, but it is not neutral, nor is it compliant with Wikipedia's expectations for a formal tone.
You might be interested in this edit [3] after seeing this edit [4] by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F. This seems to be some how associated with IP 141.131.2.3, as it seems they signed them both as "MC", immediately suggesting a sock. Further evidence in article with this revert [5] in history here. [6] Considering 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F has made just four edits Special:Contributions/2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F on the one day, suggest this is highly likely. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 06:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I would definitely like you to take a look at my post/suggestion on the PewDiePie talk page. I directly reference you and your reversions here. I would also like to clarify that I have no ill-intent with what I wrote in that section; it's really just more of a general frustration with reversions of sourced/referenced material. Best wishes, Soulbust ( talk) 10:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you restore the material you just took out. Yes it might be petty or whatever but we are trying to get consensus about what yo do. Your unilateral intervention is not helpful. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you fairly recently edited the ThinkProgress article. Since then, however, over the past few months, a lot of editing has been going on at the article, and now there is a disagreement on the Talk page about whether the current version of the article is balanced or not, as well as whether the content throughout the article is appropriate/optimal for the article. If you can spare some time to analyze the article and the current discussions on the talk page, I'm sure everyone would be interested in your input, either way. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback on my recent edits to the IoT page. Just wanted to drop in and let you know that I'll be working on the article bit by bit for the next few weeks(months? however long it takes.) If things seem unfinished, it's because they are and I just haven't gotten around to them yet. I appreciate your help in making the article better and wanted you to know how my editing style works so that it doesn't alarm you when there are gaps. -- Baumergrl ( talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this: Fine, you're a regular. Cut the shit at Order of the Arrow. You should know better. That's not a template. -- Jayron 32 02:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Cut the shitand boilerplate template, both for content you haven't even looked at, you need to try harder. Grayfell ( talk) 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
You've raised a point that makes this... not fun, so I'm going to give a more serious response. If you're not interested in reading this that way, don't bother responding at all.
We're not on the same level, so you will always be the "winner", here. Your actions have weight, and when you treat this as a joke, it has an edge that you cannot ever control. Sorry, that's just how it works. Even if this were a completely empty threat, getting blocked is scary to some people. When you threaten a stranger, justifiably, toothlessly, it doesn't matter, you don't get to decide how other people take it. You don't have to agree with this, you can laugh at me if you want, but you do have to accept that other people treat this seriously. I let you know I was annoyed by your behavior. So fucking what? What do you gain by dragging this on? You fully made your point, so don't play shitty, dehumanizing troll games over it. No, you didn't block me, but you could've. No, I don't think you would've blocked me for this without a better reason, but I don't know you, and you don't know me. You have the power here, not me, so my assumptions about your behavior are pretty much irrelevant. Grayfell ( talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. The Order of the Arrow article now presents, accurately, that some Native Americans approve of the use of Native American elements as part of the organization, while some Native Americans criticize this as inauspicious cultural appropriation. Previously, the article presented the situation as if all Native Americans criticized the OA for cultural appropriation. As Native Americans are not a monolithic group and there is diversity of opinion, the article now properly reflects the reality of the situation. As for labeling the last section of the article with a banner saying "This section contains content written like an advertisement," this criticism is inapplicable, as if the section were advertising the OA, the section would not include robust perspective of criticism that is many times longer than the previous version of the criticism that was present on the page. An advertisement for an organization would not present such criticism; instead, the section provides multiple perspectives. Merely showing the OA's perspective is not an advertisement, just as showing the perspective of detractors is not an advertisement for that position. I humbly request that you therefore remove the "Written like an advertisement tag". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceandHonor ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you. Equilibrium103 ( talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Greyfell:
I presume that you saw my comment on the Talk page of the article on Arthur Jensen, in which I said that I might edit the article when I had reviewed sources. I would not make a meaningful edit without consulting a source other than my memory. The very minor edit I made with regard to the verb "has had" was done because that verb implied that Jensen had, and still has, an interest in music. This was true when Jensen was alive, but now, after he has died, a past tense verb is appropriate. I fail to see why you would revert that. The edit of inserting some identification for Melvin Connor was made because, as I was reading the article, I did not know who Melvin Connor was, so I interrupted my reading, to find out, by going to the article on Connor. It puzzled me that he would be treated as a knowledgeable critic, and even quoted at length, without some indication of his qualifications to offer criticisms of Jensen's work. So, I put those qualifications in, so that other readers would know that Connor was an informed professional, who could reasonably discuss Jensen's work. I don't understand why that would be reverted either. My reasons for these minor edits were to improve the quality of the article. They were not relevant to its content or to any controversy about Jensen's viewpoints. Please restore these edits.
I have read and done mostly minor edits on Wikipedia since about 1993. I hope it is appropriate in this space to explain my recent activities on Wikipedia. I might assume that you have noticed that I have been reading the articles relevant to racial differences, and adding comments to some of the Talk pages. My doctoral dissertation in psychology was on racial prejudice, and I am interested in how such topics are discussed, and how they can be discussed scientifically. I am reading these articles because I have recently been rather forcibly exposed to the fact that racial differences are being treated, in almost all of the current professional literature, as if they have no empirical reality. The phrase that seems to have become part of the standard definition of race is "social construct" and, as a social construct, the concept of race is being imbued, or has been defined, as a concept which includes intrinsic implications relevant to social hierarchy, social class, and unjust but socially ascribed inferiority. This word is being used as a normative concept, like caste. To me, this is objectionable, because if the word race is not usable, there seems to be other word that could be used to discuss the actual empirical differences among various populations of humanity. It is my intention, after I have read the relevant articles, to try to improve them by inserting discussion that acknowledges and points out the differences between empirical claims, which are scientifically verifiable or falsifiable, and normatively loaded language, which does have intrinsic meanings relevant to ascribed social rank.
I am very careful to write professionally when I edit articles, although I thought the occasional silly remark on a Talk page might be allowed. (I have read a lot of silly remarks on Talk pages.) However, what I said about Neanderthal ancestry of Europeans, and its contribution to European skin and hair coloring, is not speculation or original research -- there have been extensive publications about it. I learned about it from reading the webpage Science Daily, and some other sources. And if I give as an example, the usage of races of horses as equivalent to breeds of horses, and refer to the varieties called breeds and landraces among virtually all species, as an example of how the word race might be treated as an empirical concept, that is not a silly remark. If the word race is lost to empirical science, then some other word, such as ethnic type is going to have to be substituted for it. I would rather rehabilitate a word from ordinary English, than require ordinary people to adopt a piece of jargon in order to discuss the fascinating varieties within our species.
You can check my qualifications to discuss these things on (Redacted). When my grandfather was asked about his ancestry, he used to say he was a mongrel, and so am I, so I don't really feel like I'm racially superior to anybody. Before I was a psychologist, I was an English teacher and a student of philosophy.
I hope to consult you in future, when I undertake a serious edit, as I certainly recognize that these topics are very fraught with controversies. Thank you for reading my stuff. Janice Vian, Ph.D. ( talk) 03:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations.At most, "race" has a non-firm basis in biology. If you disagree with this newer academic consensus, well, okay, but Wikipedia isn't the place to fight this battle. If you disagree that this is the current academic consensus, you'll need to find actual, recent sources discussing this.
Just wanted to express my gratitude for your recognition of the cleanup I did on Catalonia. Thank you. :) Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Grayfell. It would be useful to me if you could point to what exactly the problem with the new edit was, rather than a blanket approach, I presume in here somewhere? . . In 2017 Patterson was awarded New Zealand Institute of Architects Gold Medal, presented to a single architect each year. The citation notes his practice’s distinctive projects. [5] [6] Andrew Barrie, Professor of Design at the School of Architecture and Planning University of Auckland says that Patterson's not needing to fit on or conform gives him a freedom expressed in his eye for materiality, space and light which drives his ability to produce buildings which connect internationally. [7] Patterson is the youngest architect to receive this award. [8] The Gold medal is quite an achievement and I wanted to add. There is no conflict of interest other than being a fan of NZ architecture I am trying to be as objective as possible e.g the inclusion of quotes from academia should I remove this? Andrew Barrie, Professor of Design at the School of Architecture and Planning University of Auckland says that Patterson's not needing to fit on or conform gives him a freedom expressed in his eye for materiality, space and light which drives his ability to produce buildings which connect internationally. The rest was new awards info and interesting commentary on Maori references in his work. EditorforGS ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if previously working at The School of Architecture and Planning is a conflict or not? I have also worked on developing Patterson's website design which is where I came into contact with this body of work (this was 2 years ago and I was paid for that specific project, note I am not a copy person my background is design). I am basing the page on /info/en/?search=Ian_Athfield which has quite detailed information as do other notable NZ architects e.g /info/en/?search=Pete_Bossley and /info/en/?search=Peter_Beaven
Regarding the Len Lye building I am not sure if you can split the person from the building when the person in question is an architect and that is why they are of note? EditorforGS ( talk).
No I don't understand. I have asked for clarification on what you considered spam from what I have written and I have not received that. I also don't understand the new banner. The only content there is what you have edited. Yes I was paid 2 years ago, yes I know AP the NZ architectural community is small and that is when I noticed his wiki page needed some work (not many NZ's have a wiki page and I thought it would be handy to know how to edit). No I don't edit other peoples pages, quite frankly copy is not my natural medium and I find it difficult and having to deal with this sort of thing doesn't help. Natalie@GoodSense is me, I project manage websites under this name. The companion articles are a pretty good indicator of other NZ architectural pages, and yes AP is young, that is what makes him special, as in being the youngest ever recipient of a Gold Medal. Is there a mediator editor I can take this to, that can look at my original copy and your edits and this dialogue as I find your tone and actions bullying and unreasonable. ````Editor for GS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorforGS ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to see you are giving me some specifics and also that you have moderated your tone. Re: There's plenty of more I could say about this. As a general rule, awards should be contextualized by reliable, independent, sources. This means that press releases or similar from the NZIA are not sufficient for establishing the award as encyclopedically significant. Having won an award is not, by itself, informative unless there is a neutral way for readers to assess the award's significance. This needs to be established the same way all substantial information needs to be established on Wikipedia: through reliable sources. Many of these sources do not, at a glance, meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Architecture Now's about page does not fill me with confidence that it has the "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" required for a source. Neither does their publisher's. If we don't have a foundation of reliable sources, all these details start to seem unbalanced and disproportionate. We already know he's "not reticent about proclaiming his ambition and ability". With that in mind, how many of these sources are reliable, and how many are built out of press releases? How can we use reliable sources to create a neutral overview of him and his work?
The NZIA is NZ's only and major independent Architectural body and our only significant award givers (also why they are noted in the pages of other NZ architects I sited). These awards are our major awards - happy to add this detail, and link to their website rather than press releases. Ditto Architecture Now - we don't have many architectural commentators, most of these are academics or well known architectural journalists, I think they would be pulled up pretty fast by the NZ architectural community if they didn't fact check! What is a neutral way for readers to assess the award's significance? How do small countries establish this credibility? These are our architectural media. I added "not reticent about proclaiming his ambition and ability" as a way to balance the commentary. Andrew is known for his flashy architecture and his flashy nature. As this was a comment by the NZIA on his recent Gold Medal win I thought it a good way to acknowledge this. Also, although not all the projects are on wikipedia as individual projects, some are very important to NZ architecture should be retained as notable projects. I willing admit to being an amateur at editing in wikipages and probably making mistakes, however I do think APs contribution to NZ architecture is important and that he is somewhat outside the community made this an interesting project for me. I was trying very hard to be impartial which is why I wanted advice on what factual information was problematical to you, rather than a whole lot of assumptions based on web work I did years ago (at what point does working for someone cease to be a problem?) Re: I did this with the hope that you would begin to propose changes on the article's talk page, as I've requested both here, and through the boilerplate message on your talk page. This way we can address each of these issue in more detail. Could we maybe revert to the copy that was OK for years and then carry on? Beacuse jeepers I don't have endless time to do this. Please note I am also an artist and wanted to add some much needed female NZ artist pages eventually, this was my learning curve, I will now think twice about that as NZ art commentary is much more sketchy that that of architects. ``EditorforGS|EditorforGS`` still don't think I get the signing thing . ..
EditorforGS —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |
You can't revert my edits just because they contradict your political stance. Go take your alt-right beliefs somewhere else.
Gr4nder (
talk)
03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my
Nathan Damigo page. Could you help me on it? I know that it is notable, but I need help on it.
JustAPoliticalNerd (
talk)
00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
See my latest edit on the talk-page. He is now using this account [7]
Can you re-open an SPI for Ben Steigmann / Blastikus? [8]
[9] is also Ben. (evidence in this edit on his Wikiversity Project against Wikipedia [10]). 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
See this if you are interested [11] 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on your victory. It will be like fucking last year— Lauren Southern's a libertarian because I'm an IP address versus esteemed members. (Don't bother replying to my talk page—I'm check here for your response—if any). 45.72.224.206 ( talk) 04:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Dang!
Why did you have to reply to my post! Now I have gained a little faith that I might have an appreciable effect on this article!
"You're going to "lose" this one, because we can't figure out what the heck you're talking about."
It might have something to do with the fact that the post was reverted only 17 minutes after it was posted.
"If you want to talk about the urine-dumping incident, you're going to need to explain what the problem is with the three sources used for that section."
That's the problem with WP talk pages. If I posted an update to the section: "did she really get urine poured on her or was that soda pop?" it's unlikely to be read. Sections don't seem to be read, and most simply re-hash old stuff in new sections—it's the WP way! I presume you read my post before you reverted it—I re-mentioned my concerns; but okay, I'll waste time here. I saw the YouTube video. Now I know it's a primary source and WP would rather it be re-iterated by an RS, but fuck! I'm already fed up with webpages that take minutes to dl, dump a lot of advertising shit, and either say little and/or stuff that looks like a copy and paste from another source.
Presumably there were no Sun, G&M, or Yahoo reporters there—not even freelancers. Did any fly from Toronto or Silicon Valley, or was their report based on the YouTube video?
Now presumably, in the absence of RS as well as WP's abhorrence of primary sources, the urine thing should be removed; but, of course, it wasn't, nor will it be. I ran into similar shit in the article over Southern's alleged Libertarianism. Finally WP has moved on it, but oh so slowly and with much aggravation.
The freaking weird thing about it is that the Encyclopedia Dramatica article has an embedded video where urine was more likely tossed at Southern in another latter protest, and it might be because someone was inspired by the flawed article here.
"Vaguely pointing to a bunch of blatantly unreliable sources"
Funny how the WP article on RS describes WP as an un-RS. The idea is that such articles might have sources that could be for sources here. Indeed, one of RW's aims is to be a supplement to WP.
"You are also, of course, free to make an account, if you want."
I have, and I don't want to use it on the computer I'm using, and no, it's not for sockpuppetry.
My history of vandalism of the article was to remove the alleged libertarianism—not her party candidacy but her libertarianism. It was reverted, and the page is now protected, so it's the talk page I went to. It seems the editors got the message, but for so long this Trump supporter who ridiculed Gary Johnson was described by WP as a libertarian.
I've similarly vandalized the WQ article of wikiquote:Lauren Southern by accurately quoting from one of her YouTube videos—to counter the perception that she's such a badass anti-feminist hero.
I can understand why the article is protected—not that it will help much—but fuck, it's annoying when I make a post in the talk page I put a few 10s of minutes into creating and it's reverted so quickly. It's why I rarely go back to this article.
Not that RationalWiki is much better as an Wikipedia:Alternative outlets—it too can get heated, but it might be better if I improve the article there. This might be easier as Lauren Southern is mostly noted for being alt-right I could use a few sources here and add them there.
I'm surprised that ED has a half-decent article about her—another urine thing and the description of her "book."
I might work on RationalWiki's article of Lauren Southern and WQ. Who knows, I might do a Simple English article.
I might, just might, create an alternate account for articles on Lauren Southern, but after this post, my interest in this article will likely significantly wane for perhaps almost another year.
Another possibility in the RW article is a subsection on the WP article. RW does that with CP at times such as https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Donald_Trump_achievements or https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Differences_with_Wikipedia
Anyway, I was likely in error to make that post in the talk page. Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and all that. Though an alternate account might help. Who knows.
But for now, the best thing for me is to withdraw and leave the Lauren Southern article—and talk page—to the experts.
Good morning.
45.72.224.206 ( talk) 06:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
1.
"I think this is too long for the point you're trying to make. When writing for an audience of impatient, pedantic assholes like me and most other Wikipedia editors, you should tailor your message accordingly."
Andrew Schlafly, if I understand correctly, refers to being concise and against talk, talk, talk. But hey, you're busy. (I can only imagine the shit regular editors like you have to deal with.)
From one pedantic asshole to another, please read this at your convenience. I'm in the lifeboat now.
2.
"Just saying they exist... not so much."
It is a talk page.
3.
"You stated that "her gender is still an issue"... but it's an occasional source of vandalism. That's about it."
The article says "In October 2016, Southern had her gender legally changed to male as part of a video produced for Rebel Media to show the ease of the new gender ID laws."
The RebelMedia report merely headlines "Lauren Southern Becomes a Man!" and reports "According to the Government of Canada I'm literally a dude now! Just watch the video."
I just watched the video again and it's not even a government office at first! It's a frickin' health clinic! In the 8:03 video at 2:22 she says "about a year ago" when asked when she started to identify as a man, and yeah, at 2:42, she says –it's even on the screen—"I'm, um, attracted to girls."
3:19—Clair Vaughan Medical clinic—her address understandably is blocked out—but Clair Vaughan is in the pre-1998 amalgamated borders in Toronto which is while not the most liberal part of the city, it definitely ain't Ford country—where she might not have had the same success conning the receptionist. (FWIW, it's near Bathurst, the trad Jewish area, and likely a few km from the Junction, where Michael Coren—a bit of a firebrand himself—more in the past—and a writer of many books—most likely over 90 pages. Don't worry about doxing: the area is high density, and Coren has referred to the Junction a few times in his Toronto broadcasts.)
As health cards are a provincial matter, she is easily arguably at best not recognized as a man by the federal government, but provincial, and this is only in regards to medical insurance. Her driver's license might describe her as a woman. Ditto her passport—given she travels—I wonder how she'd get into Trump's America with a passport that'd describe her as a man. I suppose the Italians listed her as a woman too.
If instead of a health card, she listed as a man for a library card, would WP cite it as a source for it's claim of legal manliness?
Also the document says "application." It doesn't say whether or not the ministry turned her down. There's no shots of her new health card and what it describes her gender as—assuming she even got a card—she might have been refused and didn't re-apply yet.
https://files.ontario.ca/thumbnail-healthcard-illustrated.jpg
Another reason for the removal:
Gender on Health Cards and Driver's Licences
https://news.ontario.ca/mgs/en/2016/06/gender-on-health-cards-and-drivers-licences.html
June 29, 2016 2:05 P.M.
Ministry of Government and Consumer Services
"From June 13 onward, sex designation is no longer displayed on the Ontario health card. Upon their next renewal, cardholders will receive a card that does not indicate sex."
4. "Conservapedia is great for laughs, so let it be what it's good at."
Uh huh. Thought I'd mention the other wikis in order to get the perhaps-too-politically motivated (myself included) alternative outlets for their(/our) energies. Not that Schlafly would tolerate their editing, and I excluded the newer more racist wikis that yammer on about her alleged Jewishness.
5.
"I'm guessing you're the same IP who already brought up the soda/piss argument before,"
As well as whether or not she's a Libertarian. Took a while for me to pull myself out of the mud, too.
6. "but we don't really second guess sources like this,"
Apparently not.
7. "Using this topic as the battleground to debate how Wikipedia handles sources is totally ridiculous."
I don't think I am. I'm simply attacking these sources, or more aptly, these particular alleged sources, not WP policy in general.
8. "Let's talk about that and only that on the article's talk page, so something can be done."
Eliminate the bad reports and with it references to the urine incident as well as her alleged legal change of gender?
Fat fookin' chance!
I already have. It's ignored.
It fatigues me.
9. "If you know of a reliable source for the second piss incident, great."
It was intended as a (relatively) quick reference to a source to possible sources.
I currently have no reliable sources; the article has no reliable sources. So let's remove these suspect links and thus references to the alleged incident.
10. "We already have at least one, if not more, aggressive sock puppets trying to make this into a shrine to how serious political business Southern is."
Oh yeah? what sources has he used, if any? How deep are his analysis?
11. "Copypasting unflattering reviews of her self-published book to the talk page is adding even more noise."
But what if the review is by someone at RebelMedia—which apparently is considered a RS by WP? Shall I look for ED's source and if valid, put it in the article?
So should it even be called a book?
The article describes her as a "book author"
A Google News search of her "book" title lead me to this:
The deplorables have arrived in Washington, but they're not exactly united
http://mashable.com/2017/01/19/deploraball-deplorables-trump-inauguration/#Dkp32YaLt5qX
"Lauren Southern, author of a 90-page self-published book called Barbarians: How Baby Boomers, Immigrants, and Islam Screwed My Generation"
Fellow Danish descendant and occasional hair bleacher Iggy Pop wrote a book ( Here's a 35 NYT review of it by Robert Palmer—no Wayback Machines needed here.) and nowhere in his WP article is he described as an "author." I guess Iggy's so more noted for other things that it kind of slipped the minds of the editors to put it in the article. (and to be fair, it was co-written, just like Art of the Deal)
So let's remove the "book author" reference and keep the writer categories as she has written at least a glorified pamplet.
12. "If the article's length is proportional to how significant she actually is, it's going to be a pretty short article."
Yep. There was already a Nom for AfD.
45.72.224.206 ( talk) 17:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell. 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)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |