User talk:Isaidnoway/Archive 1
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Butchery of "Public response" section of Trayvon Martin Shooting article
Your recent "edit" was not really an edit. What it did was make the statement by Steele nonsensical. Without the first paragraph, the following paragraph becomes a non sequitor:
- "It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."
"It" in this paragraph reads as though it refers to Trayvon Martin's death, which is not what Steele is saying at all.
With respect to Sowell's fine essay, which is directly relevant to the section dealing with unprovoked attacks on whites by blacks that have been linked to the Trayvon Martin case, you simply engaged in exactly the kind of censorship Sowell refers to. There was nothing "inaccurate" in the summary provided (I just reread Sowell's piece to make sure), and his valuable perspective was published just two days ago.
Steele and Sowell are two very notable, eloquent people, and their views deserve a place in the "Public response" section. Eliminating their views (Sowell) or butchering them beyond recognition (Steele)are uncalled for. Apostle12 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Thomas Sowell piece opens with a description of "two white newspaper reporters who were beaten by a mob of young blacks, beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work, that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper, but wasn't. Then he goes on to talk about "violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random", and the media and authorities tendency to try and sweep these episodes under the rug, and "what the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places." What has this got to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin? This wasn't a case of "violence by black gangs against white people". This is a case of Zimmerman shooting Martin allegedly in self defense and the aspects surrounding this specific case. Sowell doesn't even mention Martin or Zimmerman at all or even try to make a significant or relevant connection to this case, nor mention that this "violence by young black gangs against white people" is "linked to the Trayvon Martin case" whatsoever. Furthermore, the section is titled "Public response", which indicates to me at least, that the "responses" made by individuals are directly related to the specific topic of this article.
- Steele does write very eloquently and specifically referenced this case, but why give so much weight to his statements as opposed to other notable figures who made public responses as well. I would think the President is more notable than Steele, but yet his statements don't receive the weight you think Steele's statement's require. Why is that? I have seen more RS reporting on Obama's statements than RS reporting on Steele's statements. While is is important to reflect all relevant viewpoints on this case, we should also consider their viewpoint (Steele's) prevalence in reporting in RS. I don't think this article should give more weight to Steele's statements with the detail that is included without RS reporting that his viewpoint is more prevalent than other notable figures who made a public response. Steele's statements should be condensed or summarized appropriately and not being given undue weight in the public response section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see that you have refused to answer the question of why you think Steele's statements deserve undue weight in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I commented at length on the article talk page. I do not agree that my edit constituted giving Steele's statements "undue weight." Apostle12 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see that you have refused to answer the question of why you think Steele's statements deserve undue weight in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit notes "Shooting of Trayvon Martin"
Discussion archived
|
---|
In your edit note you accused me of "editorializing" and not maintaining NPOV because I used the word "suspicious." Do you imagine that Zimmerman made his February 2 call because he did NOT find the behavior of a young man peering in the windows of an empty home "suspicious?" The source also says "the suspect fled." "Suspect"/"suspicious" is not much of an editorial stretch. Also you falsely claimed that there was no mention in the source of Zimmerman "following protocol." Please note fifth sentence from the end of the Reuters source "...he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive." My edit changed the wording slightly to avoid charges of plagiarism. I certainly did NOT change the meaning of either section. You have really begun to get on my nerves with this sort of nitpicking. Please stop. Apostle12 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Your additions to the talk page are helpful and informative. I hope you continue to offer your insights over the long term. Cheers! ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
OT: I find it a bit too scary to edit this article anymore, what with all the opinions and with how quickly it's all happening here in the Wiki. Glad to see you are still working on it. Cheers! ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I still follow the Shooting of Trayvon Martin pages daily. Though I don't always agree with you, you have my respect. How you manage to keep your balance is beyond me. Keep up the good work. ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion closed - moved to talk page of article
|
---|
Your recent edits to Zimmerman's version of events made the section too truncated for readers to understand his perspective on how the events unfolded. I take no position as to whether his version is true, or not. However, readers need to know what his version is. Please do not edit out various aspects of what Zimmerman says happened that night; if he is not telling the truth, that will emerge during the trial. Also, it is not necessary to add phrases like "according to Zimmerman," "Zimmerman claims," etc. so as to qualify the content of this section. The intro makes clear that the entire section is Zimmerman's version; lack of qualifiers does not constitute an endorsement of his position. Apostle12 (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Mark O'Mara
Further to your question on WP:MCQ, you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a wider view of image copyright issues. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
witness 9 straw poll
Why did you revert your closing of the section? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did it wrong, I closed the whole talk page instead. I'm working on fixing it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Thank you for your diplomacy and collaborative spirit in recent discussions on this article. I appreciate your willingness to discuss and consider compromises. Minor4th 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by and for the comments. You do offer a fresh perspective and your ideas for improving the article are usually pretty solid.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- No offense intended by my little "not invited" message. I admit I have been very inactive at the talk for the article. But I do watch it and have been impressed with your fair participation. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
So, we've butted heads several times on issues, but I do want to let you know I respect your positions and role as an editor even when I disagree with you. We have occasionally drifted into WP:FORUM on the talk page, which I am certainly personally guilty of more than once. to try and nip that in the bud somewhat, I created a mini-essay on my talk page about my editing, and overall views of the case. You may be interested in order to better understand where I am coming from (although you probably have learned the bulk of it through our previous discussions). Obviously the opinions I have there are my own personal POV/OR, so I do try to avoid making those arguments directly in the article/talk. But They do serve as my own filter for how I am dealing with the WP:N and WP:V information we are editing in, as you alluded to in your recent comment. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
TM comment
"Yes, it could have happened that way. I certainly hope that it didn't though. Could be a real problem for the prosecution if it did" - I dont understand how a procedural difference of measuring the body could be a problem for the prosecution? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
TM tense changes
Somewhat confused by the changes. Are all of those positions that you changed from "is" to "was" actually not in those jobs anymore? Or are you just doing it to indicate that these events happened in the past, but not that they have moved on from the job? I can see arguments for both styles, but it is a bit confusing. Obviously in the LONG term perspective (eventually all of these people will be dead), the "was" tense will be correct, but since the case is ongoing, it has some implications that maybe they quit/fired/etc possibly as a result of their actions on the case. Not sure how we could address that though. (Im not saying that YOU are saying any of those implications, merely that it could be ambiguously read that way, and we should avoid it if possible) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- also, if you could comment on my "summary" edit to the pre-trial section, it would let me know if it is an acceptable path to try and take with some of the other sections. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think its worth a big debate or anything, I'm mostly fine either way. But I will note that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense seems to imply we should use "is". The guideline does not address how to deal with someone who is still alive, but no longer "active" in their role. I suppose when thats an issue we could add "retired" or "was at the time" to everything as appropriate. Was at the time would be accurate now as well, but again has some implication that the status may have changed later. Sigh. So confusing! :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
case overall
I agree with you that murder is very unlikely, due to the intent issues. Manslaughter or reckless injury are much easier, but between SYG and the photos of the bloody nose/head etc, I think proving SD wasn't applicable is going to be tough, unless they can get a very good set of testimony out of the neighbors and #8 that consistently says Zimmerman was on top etc. Zimmerman is an idiot, and could have easily avoided the whole thing by just waiting in the car. But showing that it wasn't valid defense at the time of the shot is going to be real tough. That might put the burden of proof in the wrong place, but that's an issue for the legislature to fix, have to judge him under the laws as they were at the time.
If he gets off, I think we are probably in for another round of nice riots and things, and Zimmerman will probably have to move to south America or something to live out the rest of his life.
Of course, pleas make everything moot. If the judge rules against him in the SYG, I could see him accepting a manslaughter plea if they went for a relatively low number of years (statutory min is 9 for manslaughter?) vs the life he is up against. But its a big gamble. So much will depend on the jury makeup, and which viewpoint they see the case from.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the judge will rule in Zimmerman's favor at the SYG hearing, it would be much easier to just pass it off to a jury and let them be the fall guy, so to speak. The prosecution's case is incredibly weak, in my opinion, and there is enough reasonable doubt to fill a dump truck. If this case makes it to trial (there won't be a plea bargain, Zimmerman's ego wouldn't permit that) I predict the prosecution's only tactical advantage they can pursue is to hammer away at Zimmerman's credibility, and if he takes the stand to try and create a scenario where he is just a "liar" who can't be believed about anything, much less what happened that night. The wild card in this whole case will be the jury, I can see them very easily voting not guilty, regardless of the evidence presented, just because of Florida's liberal gun laws and their right to conceal and carry and their right to self-defense outside their homes.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
related to some of our recent discussion
This is incredibly clearer. How crump/prosecution can think that providing such inferior versions of these recordings, the zimmerman photos etc and still satisfy discovery astonishes me.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/7/135336/1271 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Your deletion of sourced information
The reason I think it is important to include that a break-in--in fact a home invasion--did in fact happen in the community is that a great deal has been written about the supposed "hysteria" of the community, and of George Zimmerman in particular. The previous sentence implies that there were merely "reports" of break-ins. This goes to the question of whether Zimmerman overreacted in calling the police after observing a young man acting suspiciously, and whether he was justified in trying to keep tabs on Martin until the police arrived. I think it IS very important, and I would like to add it back; it is well-sourced and at least as important as many other aspects of our coverage of this matter. Apostle12 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Closing discussion at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Hi, Regarding your edit,[2] I don't think it's proper for you to use the template "Archive top" to close the discussion. As I mentioned in my previous edit summary, please see Template:Archive top, which states "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Would you care to discuss this? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
TM
Here is some random analysis of the witness list you were discussing recently http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/witness-list-2/
More interesting IMO is this analysis of the recent filings. Obviously a source leaning pro-Zimmerman, so to be taken with a large grain of salt, but it does raise some significant credibility issues against Sabrina Fulton, Crump, and possible the prosecution. And I think the Brady stuff is going to be a huge open door if appeals are needed. Especially those quotes towards the bottom of the article make it clear there is strong precident for releasing the information, especially when specifically asked for.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/29/74056/4011
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/27/211732/645
Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, but I have been following Jeralyn and talkleft for quite some time. Actually, long before the Zimmerman case. She has always been very pro-defense on any case she takes an interest in and writes about, as she should, considering that's what she does for a living.
- All this discussion about witness 8 and her credibility, and Crump and Martin's mother is really not that big of a deal, if you ask me. She is not a "star" witness as the media has been trying to portray her as. At this point, I don't see the prosecution as even needing her to testify to anything, they can easily establish what she would testify to through other evidence. We know Zimmerman was following Martin, he admitted it. We know there was a confrontation between the two and words exchanged, he admitted it. What else does she know - nothing! Why call a witness when you know their testimony can be impeached, doesn't make sense.
- As far as the prosecutor misconduct concerning the release of evidence, I just don't see that as an issue either. O'Mara is doing what he is supposed to do, he has to preserve it for the record, or he can't argue it on appeal, pretty standard stuff. You can't argue something before an appeals court, if you didn't bring it up beforehand. And what Jeralyn and other's are leaving out of this argument, is that the defense has to prove that their misconduct had a prejudicial effect on their ability to prepare for trial and the prejudical effect affected the outcome of the trial (if he were found guilty). And furthermore, since O'Mara has brought this issue before the trial judge and she will rule on it first, the appeal court would review if the trial judge erred in her decision. If she imposes a sanction against the prosecutor, then I would say O'Mara has a pretty good case on appeal.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thank
Slightly confused by your thank. I removed content that you appear to agree with? :) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange County Sheriff's Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Martin shooting article
Back on April 6th on the Talk page you commented on section being added for Zimmerman's attorney and added a Done, but I can't find the section. I think it should be restored if it was deleted or written if it was never added. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Wow, that was a long time ago wasn't it. That section was added to the article, but a separate article was created, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, and all the information about the lawyers and judges and court proceedings were moved over to that article. I don't know if there would be a consenus right now to add that section back to the article, but I would certainly support inserting a couple of sentences pertaining to the lawyers involved in the case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. I missed the link to the other article, sometimes the links seems a little overly subtle especially when information is moved to a secondary article. I think more consistency between the two articles would be a good idea. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Trayvon Benjamin Martin (2) (September 17)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/AFC-Logo_Decline.svg/50px-AFC-Logo_Decline.svg.png)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trayvon Benjamin Martin (2).
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- In your recent 'submission declined notice', you noted that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia", which is really not the case. The redirect you provided takes you to a section in an article about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This proposed article is not about the shooting, it is about the person known as Trayvon Martin, a subject that became notable in February 2012. While the shooting is what brought this subject to our attention, this proposed article doesn't explore the night of February 26 and the incident in depth like it's sister article. Indeed, this article tells the story of a subject's life before that night and how his death inspired complete strangers to take up a cause of someone they never met. This article also explains his digital footprint he left behind on his social media accounts and how the media reported on them and also which lawyers tried to use against him in a court of law, which is becoming quite common and questionable. This subject has also been specifically mentioned by name by President Obama, once in a press conference and again in a historic speech (as a result of this subject); see Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. This subject has also received international attention and has other Wikipedia articles in other languages about him and this incident; see Here and Here and Here. The death of this subject received more media coverage in 2012 than the presidential election, happening in the same timeframe. The subject is also listed as Notable people sharing the surname "Martin" in a Wikipedia article which was added in this diff and is in the WP:CATEGORY of media related controversies in the United States. The death of the subject inspired a online petition that received over 2.2million signatures – at that time (and to this date afaik), the largest number of signatures for any campaign in Change.org's history. There is still significant interest in the subject, as of September 16, 2013, Trayvon Martin (at redirect of SoTM) had been viewed over 3300 times. In addition to the six Wikipedia articles referenced above, the subject is also referenced on Angela Corey's WP article, by far having the biggest section on her page and Martin has a section on Sanford, Florida,s page as well. From the original article, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, there have also been these articles created as a result of the subjects death: Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - State of Florida v. George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago - George Zimmerman-which was just recently created. It stands to follow we should have an article on the deceased subject, instead of just references to the subject in numerous other Wikipedia articles. This article is meant to provide a historical biography of the entirety of the subject's life and inform the reader who this notable subject was prior to February 26, 2012. Additionally, it's in compliance with WP:BLP - WP:RS - WP:V - WP:NPOV - WP:NOTE - WP:TITLE -WP:IUP. I have created the article already under the circumstances listed above, but I do thank you for taking the time to review new submissions.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Trayvon Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Skittles, Gangsta, Street culture and New Milford High School
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - recent RfC
As I am sure you are aware, the recent RfC was closed with a judgment of there not being consensus on the proposed wording. What is your current feeling regarding the discussion we had concerning your proposal for two sentences along the lines of "During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman waited until he was asked by the dispatcher to provide a description of their race, and then reported that the people were black males."? Would you accept inclusion of the final version I proposed if it incorporates these two sentences you proposed as well as a deletion of the information about the stolen bicycle that was proposed by NickCT? Dezastru (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- My only concern, regardless of what version we choose, is not to imply that Zimmerman was racially profiling anybody. The whole point of that sourcing, as I understand it, it to dispel that notion. I also think it's important for the sentence to be worded to reflect that he was asked by the dispatcher first, instead of saying, "they were all black males, although he waited until asked". I think by saying "although", it sounds like we are diminishing the fact he was asked, which is really a relevant point the sourcing is trying to make.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin page question
Hello! I am an artist and researcher working on a project about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. I would like to ask you some questions about your involvement and work on the wikipedia page as part of my research. I do not know the best way to contact you but would love to talk further about your involvement and why you are interested. Thanks for listening, please be in touch. Wordisbond17 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Wordisbond17 You can contact me through my talk page or email. Just let me know which you prefer.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! I'll email you. Thanks! Wordisbond17 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Hey, did you ever get that email I sent your way? 70.109.163.223 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
revdel
Since you edited while logged out, you may wish to have an admin revdel those revisions to hide your IP. not sure if you care about that sort of thing. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, it's ok. I have nothing to hide. I was at work, so it wasn't my regular pc. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please carefully read this reply
- Gee, thanks for posting this big fat notice on my talk page. I was totally aware of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the arbitration committee as there is a notice on the talk page of the article I am currently editing and I have cited it a couple of times as well to other editor's. One should WP:AGF that I am able to read and comprehend notices posted on article's talk pages.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Question
I saw your follow-up to my comment at WP:AN/I about that guy, which left me a little puzzled. We are in agreement about this matter, more or less? It is clear that I was emphasizing how disruptive he was, not trying to justify his actions in the least. By mentioning names like Annie Sprinkles, Harry Reems, James Deen, Jenna Jameson, etc. I was trying to emphasize that there existed no credible grounds for derogatory language. These are people notable for being porn stars, & only a person on a personal vendetta would blank them along with less familiar names. BTW, I regret that events didn't allow me to act more decisively in this matter, & settle it before it turned into its current dramafest. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- @llywrch I was tired and should have already been in bed when I posted that, but to clarify, yes I agree with you on this issue. I just thought it was important for editor's to be able to have a look at the "original" page in question that started this fiasco. As far as I can tell, this is one of those articles that was created years ago with good faith intentions, and has had additional info added over the years in good faith edits. As Wikidemon pointed out below my comment, we found zero evidence of contentious claims being made about any of these actors. So, without agreeing or disagreeing about the current inclusion criteria for lists of this nature that is being discussed across the various boards, I think the question needs to be answered that when a WP article (any article) is discovered that is several years old and needs updating, do we just indiscriminately blank it, or do we give the volunteers an agreed upon amount of time to fix it, and if it's not fixed then request an AfD. I initially supported the retention of this article at the AfD and stated then - that this article could probably use some updating and volunteered along with some other editor's to undertake this mass project, but I also think that when you have a particular editor with an agenda creating a disruptive editing environment, it's hard to achieve the goal of improving encyclopedic content in that sort of environment. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well it's clear that you can express the point far better than I. And it's clear that he's clearly pushing an agenda. Let's hope that we can blunt his pointiness. -- llywrch (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed your AN/I report
Just wanted to give you a heads up, I removed your AN/I report. Generally we try not to attract additional attention to things like that, even when already revision deleted (which I have done). I've also reported the edit to the oversight team for their review. In the future, I suggest either finding an active admin and requesting revision deletion directly, or just reporting it to the oversight team via email, with AN/I only as a last resort. Monty845 16:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if you want to post a new AN/I report on just the remaining issue, I don't have an objection, however the talk page of the article may be able to resolve that part. Monty845 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Three Pontiac firebirds
Very cool. I once had a 1968 Firebird convertible. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Brown shooting
We may disagree on the point about the lawsuit, but I want to reiterate that I greatly respect your abilities and intentions as an editor, based on our experience at the Martin article, and so far on the Brown article. That extends to even when you are obviously wrong and I am right ;) Good to work with you again.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Gaijin42, I know, it's like DejaVu all over again. Good to see you again - making all the wrong arguments:) Isaidnoway (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Michael Brown
I noticed that you are also involved in the editing of Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I think this article is well done and balanced at least for the Lede. I noticed that the editors there use a foot note in the Lede, with the popup feature. I've not used footnotes in the Lede before, but it seems like a brilliant way to get detail at the readers' finger tips without clogging up the flow. Best to you. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't like to be on the other side of issues from you, as I do feel you are among the best and most conscientious editors involved in this article. I may disagree with your points, and think you might have become to close to the issue, but I know that your intent and spirit are without reproach. Best. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to revert my archiving of the RFC, feel free. I think it is correct to remove the content while ongoing, as it was 2:1 for removal and a BLP/V issue, but if people want the RFC to stay open longer I have no objection. My main problem was some obvious WP:GAMEing from some of the participants. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have no intention in getting involved in an edit-war over this closing. It is not 2:1 for removal. Excluding 2kindsofpork because he !voted twice, the tally is 7 for removal and 5 for no criminal record, that is not a clear and convincing consensus. It just looks like to me, regardless of what the outcome of the RfC was going to be, it didn't matter - because some editor's feel they don't have to abide by consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted myself. In any case had you reverted I don't think any would would consider that an edit war. I had missed that pork !voted twice, and darkfrog is a latecomer to my count (which is a good reason to keep it open longer, I freely admit). You are right that 7-5 is not SNOW territory. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carnival of Rust may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Fall|date=24 May 2006}}</ref>and has sold [[Music recording sales certification|platinum]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Carnival of Rust sells platinum|url=http://www.poetsofthefall.com/news/893_carnival_
- album is featured in [[Helsingin Sanomat|Helsingin Sanomat's]] "Best albums of 2006" article.<ref>{{cite web|title=Carnival of Rust in HS's best albums of the year|url=http://www.poetsofthefall.com/
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, I fixed it. Now get lost. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alex the Dog may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- allaboutbeer.com/features/225dogsandbeer.html Beer (and) Man's Best Friend For Beer Dogs Everywhere], AllAboutBeer.com, November 2001. Accessed 5 March 2008</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nathaniel Kaz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- //www.nationalsculpture.org/nssN/index.cfm/fa/cExhibits.exhibitAwards National Sculpture Society]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rich Duwelius, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Miller, Pat Powers and Dave Saunders. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Curse of the Komodo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Logan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
These long template messages are not necessary. Don't do it again. Thanks. Don't really care if it's twinkle or sprinkle or fairy dust, don't do it again
|
---|
Your recent editing history at Shooting of Michael Brown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC) |
- These long template messages are not necessary. Don't do it again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but no. I use Twinkle warnings for convenience. You can delete warnings once you read them. By that way, you have already violated 3RR so I recommend that you self-revert or you may be blocked anyway.- MrX 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- MrX, for whatever my opinion is worth, I don't consider his last revert a 3RR violation, per what I said in the next section below. And I think reverting that would be a mistake, as it would put the article into the wrong state. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine. I don't intend to report it. I would just like to see the edit warring stop.- MrX 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- MrX, for whatever my opinion is worth, I don't consider his last revert a 3RR violation, per what I said in the next section below. And I think reverting that would be a mistake, as it would put the article into the wrong state. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What a cluster fuck!
I have no idea how we got into a situation where your revert could result in something that resembles existing consensus, but we did and I'm not feeling inclined to analyze that at this point. But it's a good example of the confusion that can result when people don't follow established process. There should have been one revert followed by a freeze until consensus was reached for change. The alternative is chaos, which is pretty much what we ended up with. I don't like fighting. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's simple and straightforward to me. All four media outlets used anonymous sourcing. What I don't understand is this idea that we give preferential treatment to CNN's anonymous source and just dismiss the other's - FOX and ABC as propaganda by government agencies. FOX and ABC both have those stories up on their sites and I don't see where they have retracted their reporting. Am I missing something here? Does CNN trump all other media outlets with their anonymous sourcing? Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to extend the talk page discussion here, and there's nothing to gain by having the same discussion in two places. You may have a good point, and if so I think we'll reach consensus for your change. If the majority is too dumb to see the value of the change, well shit happens and we move on. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Re-open RfC?: Genital modification and mutilation
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.
Hello. Would you be willing to re-open this RfC? I added the agreed upon RfC wording to the article, but there is a user that decided to use significantly differently wording. I was thinking about pinging everyone from the RfC to see what their thoughts were. And since it hasn’t been 30 days yet, I see no issue with re-opening the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This was a bad RfC but the close was fair enough if "meh" (executive summary: the article should be edited normally). However, since this now seems to have become the locus of some problems, it is right that any challenge follows the correct process of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which would appear to be a challenge at WP:AN. Bon courage (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The first step per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE:
“contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion.”
I suppose the RfC may be a valid close. In that case, maybe we still need to go to a third opinion noticeboard or AN. Prcc27 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The first step per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE:
- In fact on further consideration this is a bad close. This article is meant to be an overview article pointing off to main articles on various topics using the "main" template. The principle is that material should be in WP:SYNC with those main articles so referenced. By allowing novel material to be spliced in here, that principle is ignored and - rather - there's is an invitation to WP:POVFORK. Thus I take it the close can only be complied with in such a way that WP:SYNC is observed, otherwise it's running counter to the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make it a bad close.. You or someone else could have made those points while the RfC was still open. The closer made the close based on the existing discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Closes can't be a WP:LOCALCON. I wasn't aware of the RfC. Bon courage (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make it a bad close.. You or someone else could have made those points while the RfC was still open. The closer made the close based on the existing discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Prcc27 and Bon courage: — I closed it based on the existing discussion. It wasn't a contentious topic area, nor was the discussion heated or controversial, and there wasn't any challenges to the proposed wording. I also highlighted the comment about sources being used. I didn't consider arguments that weren't made or could have been made in the closure, which would have been a supervote on my part. So I believe a consensus was established to implement the proposed wording. Just because an editor wasn't aware of the RfC and didn't get to participate, isn't a good enough reason to re-open it, in my opinion.
Per WP:RFCCLOSE - An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. The RfC was opened 28 days ago, with the last comment being 17 days ago, so keeping that in mind, the closure doesn't run afoul of the guidelines at RFCCLOSE. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- I think this is a WP:CTOP under the ganergate restrictions. I think the issue is that it seems some editors might interpret the close to be an override of WP:SS. This is an article which summarizes other articles, and should not contain novel content. Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any extended confirmed protection restrictions on the article, like there usually is in a WP:CTOP designated article, and there is no notice on the talk page either indicating the article is covered by CTOP. The page protection says Allow all users to edit. If you have evidence that the article is covered by CTOP, please provide it. And WP:SS was not argued, or even mentioned in the discussion, so I couldn't consider SS in the closure. I closed it based on the existing discussion. And if you are editing the article against the consensus of the RfC, you really shouldn't be doing that either. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most CTOP articles do not have ECP (everything in COVID-19 and all biographies, e,g,). I remember GG being invoked for circumcision topics in the past. But why does this matter? The issue at hand is a claim that a close enable editors to ignore WP:SYNC and start putting novel material into summary sections. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SYNC was not argued, or even mentioned in the discussion, so I couldn't consider SYNC in the closure. I closed it based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Were you aware that the discussion applied to a summary pointing to an article via a main template? Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one argued, or even mentioned that in the discussion, so I couldn't consider arguments that weren't made. I closed it based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Closers are meant to ensure closes don't run against the WP:PAGs, and that requires familiarity with the context. Also an RfC which mandates text without a reliable source (which may or may not exist to WP:Verify the content at hand) runs pretty hard counter to several policies, no? Bon courage (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said in the closure -
An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines.
If you have any issues with the sourcing, that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- And what if no such source exists? Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- When the content was added to the article here, a reliable source was added per the RfC closure. Like I said, if you have any issues with the sourcing, that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- So what happens to the mandated text if:
- The cited source (or a better source) does not support it?
- It is out-of-sync with the pointed-to articles?
- Bon courage (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I have answered your questions satisfactorily pertaining to my closure of the RfC, and whether I would re-open it. I think we are done here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- With respect, you very much haven't; the issues are crystalised by the two points above. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1. If you have an issue with the sourcing, discuss it on the article's talk page.
- 2. I did not consider arguments that were not made, or arguments that could have been made in the discussion, that would be a supervote, as I stated before up above. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again you are not answering the question, which is "what happens to the mandated text if ..."? Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I believe I have answered your questions satisfactorily pertaining to my closure of the RfC, and whether I would re-open it. It appears to me you just want to make arguments now that weren't made during the RfC. So if you want answers to your question "what happens to the mandated text if ..."? Please open a discussion on the articles talk page and discuss it there. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am asking a question about the close which just seems to mandate a particular form of words without any explanation of how that works in practice. As it stands, the close is manifestly unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to me you are just wanting to re-litigate the whole discussion, and make new arguments now that weren't made during the RfC. I believe I have explained my rationale for closing the discussion satisfactorily.Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE - If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.
- If you believe that there was a problem with the close itself, and you were unable to resolve the issue here on my talk page, please take the next step(s) accordingly, either at AN or on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- You keep deflecting into stuff about ECP (?), or my supposed motives rather than answering simple and direct questions about the close itself. There are three questions I have asked you have not answered. This is not "re-litigation". What's the point of discussing if you're not going to engage? As a reminder, the three questions are:
- Were you aware that the discussion applied to a summary pointing to an article via a main template? (NO ANSWER)
- What happens to the mandated text if the cited source (or a better source) does not support it? (NO ANSWER)
- What happens to the mandated text if it is out-of-sync with the pointed-to articles? (NO ANSWER)
- As it is, the solution appears to be to ignore the close and follow the WP:PAGs, but if disruption flares up there may be a need to go to AN. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- The close itself was based on the existing discussion. Like I previously told you, (1) again, there was no discussion or mention in the RfC about SS, so I couldn't consider an argument that wasn't brought up or could have been brought up. (2) if you have any issues about sources being used, discuss that on the article's talk page, (3) again, there was no discussion or mention of SYNC, so I couldn't consider an argument that wasn't brought up or could have been brought up. So yeah, you are wanting to re-argue the whole RfC based on what you think shoulda/coulda been brought up (SS and SYNC) in the discussion. And I don't believe the solution is to ignore the consensus established at the RfC based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- You keep deflecting into stuff about ECP (?), or my supposed motives rather than answering simple and direct questions about the close itself. There are three questions I have asked you have not answered. This is not "re-litigation". What's the point of discussing if you're not going to engage? As a reminder, the three questions are:
- No, I am asking a question about the close which just seems to mandate a particular form of words without any explanation of how that works in practice. As it stands, the close is manifestly unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I believe I have answered your questions satisfactorily pertaining to my closure of the RfC, and whether I would re-open it. It appears to me you just want to make arguments now that weren't made during the RfC. So if you want answers to your question "what happens to the mandated text if ..."? Please open a discussion on the articles talk page and discuss it there. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again you are not answering the question, which is "what happens to the mandated text if ..."? Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- With respect, you very much haven't; the issues are crystalised by the two points above. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I have answered your questions satisfactorily pertaining to my closure of the RfC, and whether I would re-open it. I think we are done here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- So what happens to the mandated text if:
- When the content was added to the article here, a reliable source was added per the RfC closure. Like I said, if you have any issues with the sourcing, that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- And what if no such source exists? Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said in the closure -
- Closers are meant to ensure closes don't run against the WP:PAGs, and that requires familiarity with the context. Also an RfC which mandates text without a reliable source (which may or may not exist to WP:Verify the content at hand) runs pretty hard counter to several policies, no? Bon courage (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one argued, or even mentioned that in the discussion, so I couldn't consider arguments that weren't made. I closed it based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Were you aware that the discussion applied to a summary pointing to an article via a main template? Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SYNC was not argued, or even mentioned in the discussion, so I couldn't consider SYNC in the closure. I closed it based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most CTOP articles do not have ECP (everything in COVID-19 and all biographies, e,g,). I remember GG being invoked for circumcision topics in the past. But why does this matter? The issue at hand is a claim that a close enable editors to ignore WP:SYNC and start putting novel material into summary sections. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any extended confirmed protection restrictions on the article, like there usually is in a WP:CTOP designated article, and there is no notice on the talk page either indicating the article is covered by CTOP. The page protection says Allow all users to edit. If you have evidence that the article is covered by CTOP, please provide it. And WP:SS was not argued, or even mentioned in the discussion, so I couldn't consider SS in the closure. I closed it based on the existing discussion. And if you are editing the article against the consensus of the RfC, you really shouldn't be doing that either. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- As a general comment I also have to ask, why in the Hell was this RfC launched? WP:RFCBEFORE says "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC". Yet this just appeared from nowhere. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- This was already addressed at the RfC itself. It did not appear from nowhere. Maybe you just missed the previous discussion on the matter..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Request for Administrator Intervention: Conflict of Interest and Content Dispute on Gavin Wood Article
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.
Hello,
I am requesting administrator intervention regarding a content dispute and potential conflict of interest involving the user @Isaidnoway and the article on Gavin Wood. The issue involves the repeated removal of reliably sourced content that I believe should be included in the article. I would appreciate it if an administrator could review the case and help resolve the dispute.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you have actual evidence, you should open a thread at WP:COIN rather than make pointless posts on an editors talk page and hope someone notices. Note that administrators have no special powers to investigate COI. If you have no evidence, and you've presented none, I suggest you drop this right now. IMO you're already on very thin ice with personal attacks considering the disgusting personal attacks you made against User:Bilby for which AFAIK, you didn't even properly apologise for instead just made a non-apology apology. In other words, if you open a COI thread or otherwise keep pursuing this despite an apparent lack of any evidence, expect to be blocked for continued personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)