User talk:Morbidthoughts
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Might interest you
[edit]Hello. The BLP article, Bagrat Galstanyan, is being influenced again by the claim that concluded to have no consensus for inclusion at the BLP committee. Apparently there is a “new” source but it doesn’t actually prove anything, the source verbatim uses the word “allegation” for this claim which means it has no proof. I have reverted the WP:BLP and consensus violating edit [1], but it looks like it was restored again. I’m not very active on Wikipedia, and I thought you might be interested in this as an experienced user and someone who participated in the BLP discussion. Cheers! AntEgo (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It was restored with a recent reference to what seems like a reliable source that verified the allegations existed. This was bound to happen since he is now in the public eye as a political dissident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- ok, should we not use the word "alleged" then since that what the sources uses? just "accused" is vague imo, it omits the fact that the accusation has no proof like the new source states it with "alleged". AntEgo (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, there isn't a fundamental difference between alleged and accused in this context, proof or no proof. They are synonyms of each other. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- ok, should we not use the word "alleged" then since that what the sources uses? just "accused" is vague imo, it omits the fact that the accusation has no proof like the new source states it with "alleged". AntEgo (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Watten
[edit]I've restored an entire edited volume dedicated to the subject and a full-length article in Dictionary of Literary Biography, a highly credible source. These are major resources and any bibliographer would know this. I will be posted a pdf of the DLB article soon and making that available. The reviews also should be restored; reviews have been on this page continuously.
As well, you have edited the controversy paragraph to reinsert poorly sourced and contentious material. That is in direct violation of the instructions, which I quote: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
It is important to note that the blog is anonymous and highly defamatory. There has been no recourse in terms of demand for retraction as the identifying number cannot be traced; this was done to shield the authors from repercussions. A similar article for the communist party People's World was removed on demand; this should establish the unreliability of this material. Here is a link to the People's World page: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/safe-space-fail-wayne-state-professor-remains-on-job-after-sexual-harassment-allegations/
My earlier edit of this paragraph was totally justified under Wiki rules: I was responding to the persistence of defamatory material. And I would be justified in continuing to do so. The edit I made covers the facts but maintains neutrality, and I ask you to consider it again. Please talk to Starrygrandma about this if you need to; she advocates total removal. Thanks.
"At Wayne State University in 2019, a social media campaign in by some students against Watten, alleging hostile interactions, resulted in an article inThe Chronicle of Higher Education. Wayne State hired an independent investigator, which led to disciplinary sanctions in November 2019. Concurrently, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) wrote a legal opinion addressed to Wayne State, criticizing its handling of the speech issues involved. Watten's faculty union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), filed a series of grievances citing a lack of required due process and requesting the restrictions be withdrawn. After their being modified in arbitration, Watten has returned to teaching a full schedule since 2023."
The first sentence notes the fact of the blog without linking to it. It states that there were allegations, but there were not sustained in the investigation. It includes FIRE's major public rebuttal to the university, certainly a relevant public document. It adds the support of the faculty union. And it states that I have been teaching.
Thanks for your help. ThisDirect (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did not make any edits about a blog as multiple people have made edits to your article. Continued discussion about this should be made on the article text page or at the BLP Noticeboards. If you continue to make disputed edits to the article, you will be blocked from doing so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- This editing is a travesty. Would you please identify what level editor you are, and how I may ask for assistance at the next level. I believe a fraud is being perpetrated, likely by one of the editors. I received a solicitation for a "wiki crafter" who would help restore the page; it is possible that the "wiki crafter" severely edited the page in order to promote such services. If you are that person I would ask you to identify yourself and restore the page. But basically, I want this to stop; please direct me to a supervisorial editor who can discuss the matter. ThisDirect (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am just an editor, but have no supervisor editor overseeing me. The correct venue to discuss specific issues about your article is WP:BLPN or your article's talk page which you already have been doing. The solicitation that you received may just be a scammer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- And very likely one of the editors who has made the changes. It could be you!
- All of the material you deleted is verifiable, and you are simply causing a pile-up of work to get it corrected. I will seek a higher-level complaint as you people have clearly been getting off on destructing editing. Some of it seems to be revenge for comments I made on Joe Amato's thread. Get a life, is what I say. ThisDirect (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could be paranoid and perpetuating the Streisand Effect on your article. Good luck. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am just an editor, but have no supervisor editor overseeing me. The correct venue to discuss specific issues about your article is WP:BLPN or your article's talk page which you already have been doing. The solicitation that you received may just be a scammer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- This editing is a travesty. Would you please identify what level editor you are, and how I may ask for assistance at the next level. I believe a fraud is being perpetrated, likely by one of the editors. I received a solicitation for a "wiki crafter" who would help restore the page; it is possible that the "wiki crafter" severely edited the page in order to promote such services. If you are that person I would ask you to identify yourself and restore the page. But basically, I want this to stop; please direct me to a supervisorial editor who can discuss the matter. ThisDirect (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
[edit]Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)