|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Wikipedia has become a toxic mess. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accessible source of good information available to anyone, and to maintain impartiality by presenting as fact only things which are widely acknowledged as such. Wikipedia is no longer that. Instead, it has become a tool for the atheistic and globalist ideology of the Great Reset. Valuable information is scuttered and impartiality abandoned as articles are made to cater specifically to those with short attention spans and philosophies consistent with the New World Order. Editors who protest are punished no matter how competent they are or how much they have contributed to the site, while almost any amount of belligerent behavior and incompetency is permitted as long as the editors who engage in such practices do so in the service of the left-wing consensus.
I have done my best to fight against this, but it has proven to be too much for me. I was indefinitely blocked from the site for not doing any more to advocate for conservative positions than many progressive editors advocate for progressive positions without suffering any consequences. More recently, I have been indefinitely blocked from the Andrew Jackson article, an article that I brought to featured article status and helped maintain, without satisfactory reason being given. Meanwhile, other editors who have adopted a battleground mentality on the talk page, made comments that were uncivil and blatant POV-pushing, edited disputed material without consensus, and frequently disrupted discussions were not punished and scarcely even reprimanded, including after I brought specific attention to many of these violations. I have made repeated unblock requests that have not been accepted, while I have been forced to watch as this article, which I have spent countless hours editing, has been wrecked through the removal of valuable content. Wikipedia is a trash heap that has been disgraced by editors who either do not have a clue how to create good content or do not care about doing so.
I have given the matter some thought and prayer, and decided that it is not worth the cost to my time and constitution to keep fighting these battles and trying to save a place that has grown so corrupt and decadent. I have done my duty and can do no more. So long as I am not completely blocked from the site, I will probably still make some gnomish edits from time to time, or revert some silliness here or there on articles that I have edited which have not yet gone the way of Andrew Jackson, but as far as embarking on any more large-scale projects here, I think I’m finished.
For those who intend to continue fighting for a good, comprehensive, and neutral encyclopedia, I pray that God’s blessings be upon them. With that, I step away. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.
For the sake of transparency, I did start an RFC on John Adams. Best, -- Rockstone Send me a message! 03:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Rockstone35, thank you for the notification. I saw it and participated. Display name 99 ( talk) 03:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have restored Donald Wuerl to my original edits. Regarding your comment, I provided citations with all of the content that I added; the content without citations was inserted before me and either had dead links or no citations. I attempted to find citations for much of it - if you think it should be deleted, I would agree with that. I welcome any of your edits on this article and appreciate any constructive specific criticisms or suggestions that you have to offer. However, I do not agree with a blanket reversion. Have a good day. Rogermx ( talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Rogermx, you broke up paragraphs with information cited and did so in a way that several sentences were left uncited. See for example the sentence under the McCarrick section that ends with "Higuera." That sentence was sourced, but when you broke up the paragraph (for some unknown reason), you did not add a new citation, which left it appearing unsourced. You did this again with a paragraph in "Response to Dominus Iesus." The rest of your edits I was more or less indifferent about, but these are two flagrant style violations. You're an experienced editor with over 50,000 edits-almost than twice as many as me. You should know not to do that.
- I've gone ahead and re-combined the two paragraphs in question, as I can't see why you separated them anyway, and left the rest as is. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
RE your reversion of my addition concerning the NAC class of 1975.
"This link is just to a list of articles, none of which that I found seem to be about this."
From the Pillar article I cited: "By my count — and thanks to the current NAC seminarian who helped me get a class list — there were ten bishops chosen from the North American College’s Class of 75, including three cardinals: (Cardinal) Cupich, Zurek, Hoeppner, Cote, Mulvey, Kagan, (Leonard) Blair, (Cardinal) Harvey, Provost, and (Cardinal) Burke." -- Which seems to be very pertinent to the article at hand.
"Also, don't put a link in between two pieces of text cited to the same source without adding another link to the earlier source before the new text that you add; it corrupts text to citation integrity."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but would be open to implementing it if you could explain it further.
As regards to your concerns WRT the Pillar's reliability, they do not seem to be upheld by WP:RSP. The Pillar has not been prior flagged as unreliable, and is used throughout Wikipedia.
Maximilian775 ( talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maximilian775, I see the passage that you cited, but the link was to a list of articles, rather than to a single article, which makes it difficult to locate. Is that list fixed or are new articles added to it over time? In the event of the latter, the article with the information that you cited will go further and further down on the list, making it increasingly difficult to locate. Can you get a link just to the individual article in question?
- In the Burke article, you added your text with the citation in the middle of a paragraph cited to a different source. That makes it look like the text in the early part of the paragraph is cited to the source that you added rather than to the source at the end of the paragraph. That makes it difficult for the reader to track the information. The solution to this is to add a second citation to the original source ahead of where you put the new information. Refer to WP:TSI.
- Regarding the source's reliability, the fact that a source has not been formally identified as unreliable by Wikipedia and has been used elsewhere does not automatically make it reliable. Are there any credentials that the person or persons running the website have? Are they professional journalists or freelance bloggers? The former are generally reliable, and the latter generally not. (I did a little research and it looks like one of the editors is a former contributor at the Catholic News Agency, a reputable source. That may settle the reliability question in your favor, but the issue of the link being to a list of articles rather than to a single article is still outstanding.)
Display name 99 (
talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article is fixed. That "series" or type of article from the Pillar is a digest of stories they've come out with recently along with additional analysis at the end. Those article pages are stable.
- As to the Pillar's reliability, they are career journalists with a professional editorial staff.
-
Maximilian775 (
talk) 02:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Maximilian775, I have self-reverted both of my edits. Please keep in mind what I told you about the proper placement of citations.
Display name 99 (
talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm on mobile right now and so can't easily make those citation revisions, but will tomorrow.
Maximilian775 (
talk) 02:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maximilian775, I just did it. No need to worry. I meant to say so in my last reply. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm on mobile right now and so can't easily make those citation revisions, but will tomorrow.
Maximilian775 (
talk) 02:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Maximilian775, I have self-reverted both of my edits. Please keep in mind what I told you about the proper placement of citations.
Display name 99 (
talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Wikipedia has become a toxic mess. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accessible source of good information available to anyone, and to maintain impartiality by presenting as fact only things which are widely acknowledged as such. Wikipedia is no longer that. Instead, it has become a tool for the atheistic and globalist ideology of the Great Reset. Valuable information is scuttered and impartiality abandoned as articles are made to cater specifically to those with short attention spans and philosophies consistent with the New World Order. Editors who protest are punished no matter how competent they are or how much they have contributed to the site, while almost any amount of belligerent behavior and incompetency is permitted as long as the editors who engage in such practices do so in the service of the left-wing consensus.
I have done my best to fight against this, but it has proven to be too much for me. I was indefinitely blocked from the site for not doing any more to advocate for conservative positions than many progressive editors advocate for progressive positions without suffering any consequences. More recently, I have been indefinitely blocked from the Andrew Jackson article, an article that I brought to featured article status and helped maintain, without satisfactory reason being given. Meanwhile, other editors who have adopted a battleground mentality on the talk page, made comments that were uncivil and blatant POV-pushing, edited disputed material without consensus, and frequently disrupted discussions were not punished and scarcely even reprimanded, including after I brought specific attention to many of these violations. I have made repeated unblock requests that have not been accepted, while I have been forced to watch as this article, which I have spent countless hours editing, has been wrecked through the removal of valuable content. Wikipedia is a trash heap that has been disgraced by editors who either do not have a clue how to create good content or do not care about doing so.
I have given the matter some thought and prayer, and decided that it is not worth the cost to my time and constitution to keep fighting these battles and trying to save a place that has grown so corrupt and decadent. I have done my duty and can do no more. So long as I am not completely blocked from the site, I will probably still make some gnomish edits from time to time, or revert some silliness here or there on articles that I have edited which have not yet gone the way of Andrew Jackson, but as far as embarking on any more large-scale projects here, I think I’m finished.
For those who intend to continue fighting for a good, comprehensive, and neutral encyclopedia, I pray that God’s blessings be upon them. With that, I step away. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.
For the sake of transparency, I did start an RFC on John Adams. Best, -- Rockstone Send me a message! 03:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Rockstone35, thank you for the notification. I saw it and participated. Display name 99 ( talk) 03:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have restored Donald Wuerl to my original edits. Regarding your comment, I provided citations with all of the content that I added; the content without citations was inserted before me and either had dead links or no citations. I attempted to find citations for much of it - if you think it should be deleted, I would agree with that. I welcome any of your edits on this article and appreciate any constructive specific criticisms or suggestions that you have to offer. However, I do not agree with a blanket reversion. Have a good day. Rogermx ( talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Rogermx, you broke up paragraphs with information cited and did so in a way that several sentences were left uncited. See for example the sentence under the McCarrick section that ends with "Higuera." That sentence was sourced, but when you broke up the paragraph (for some unknown reason), you did not add a new citation, which left it appearing unsourced. You did this again with a paragraph in "Response to Dominus Iesus." The rest of your edits I was more or less indifferent about, but these are two flagrant style violations. You're an experienced editor with over 50,000 edits-almost than twice as many as me. You should know not to do that.
- I've gone ahead and re-combined the two paragraphs in question, as I can't see why you separated them anyway, and left the rest as is. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
RE your reversion of my addition concerning the NAC class of 1975.
"This link is just to a list of articles, none of which that I found seem to be about this."
From the Pillar article I cited: "By my count — and thanks to the current NAC seminarian who helped me get a class list — there were ten bishops chosen from the North American College’s Class of 75, including three cardinals: (Cardinal) Cupich, Zurek, Hoeppner, Cote, Mulvey, Kagan, (Leonard) Blair, (Cardinal) Harvey, Provost, and (Cardinal) Burke." -- Which seems to be very pertinent to the article at hand.
"Also, don't put a link in between two pieces of text cited to the same source without adding another link to the earlier source before the new text that you add; it corrupts text to citation integrity."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but would be open to implementing it if you could explain it further.
As regards to your concerns WRT the Pillar's reliability, they do not seem to be upheld by WP:RSP. The Pillar has not been prior flagged as unreliable, and is used throughout Wikipedia.
Maximilian775 ( talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maximilian775, I see the passage that you cited, but the link was to a list of articles, rather than to a single article, which makes it difficult to locate. Is that list fixed or are new articles added to it over time? In the event of the latter, the article with the information that you cited will go further and further down on the list, making it increasingly difficult to locate. Can you get a link just to the individual article in question?
- In the Burke article, you added your text with the citation in the middle of a paragraph cited to a different source. That makes it look like the text in the early part of the paragraph is cited to the source that you added rather than to the source at the end of the paragraph. That makes it difficult for the reader to track the information. The solution to this is to add a second citation to the original source ahead of where you put the new information. Refer to WP:TSI.
- Regarding the source's reliability, the fact that a source has not been formally identified as unreliable by Wikipedia and has been used elsewhere does not automatically make it reliable. Are there any credentials that the person or persons running the website have? Are they professional journalists or freelance bloggers? The former are generally reliable, and the latter generally not. (I did a little research and it looks like one of the editors is a former contributor at the Catholic News Agency, a reputable source. That may settle the reliability question in your favor, but the issue of the link being to a list of articles rather than to a single article is still outstanding.)
Display name 99 (
talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article is fixed. That "series" or type of article from the Pillar is a digest of stories they've come out with recently along with additional analysis at the end. Those article pages are stable.
- As to the Pillar's reliability, they are career journalists with a professional editorial staff.
-
Maximilian775 (
talk) 02:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Maximilian775, I have self-reverted both of my edits. Please keep in mind what I told you about the proper placement of citations.
Display name 99 (
talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm on mobile right now and so can't easily make those citation revisions, but will tomorrow.
Maximilian775 (
talk) 02:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maximilian775, I just did it. No need to worry. I meant to say so in my last reply. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm on mobile right now and so can't easily make those citation revisions, but will tomorrow.
Maximilian775 (
talk) 02:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Maximilian775, I have self-reverted both of my edits. Please keep in mind what I told you about the proper placement of citations.
Display name 99 (
talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)