User talk:Sullay/Archive 7

Purra's words in the media

Yo. I was the one who added what Purra said about the 17-year-old to the Middle July 2023 section. J. Sketter removed it. Rightly so, as AFAIK it hasn't been covered in the media and we really don't want to give the impression remarks about the whole mess that don't apply to it apply to it. If it's been mentioned in the media, could you please let me know? --Kiz o r 18:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's been mentioned on Finnish-language media several times. That J. Sketter guy really tries to whitewash the article a lot, huh? By the way, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! More than happy to help. – Sullay (Let's talk about it) 20:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he was in the right to not have it in that section. Where in the Finnish media? I'd love to get a source beyond Scripta. --Kiz o r 22:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Iltalehti stripped and published all 185 Purra's messages, but that doesn't mean every one of them should be included in the article. I think all messages that has been more widely addressed in the media are now included under "controversies".

2) I don't like you talk about me like that here behind my back. Talking about "whitewashing" tells more about your own bias. As does your prejudiced statement in the Finnish Wikipedia that you firmly believe Purra with her(?) "Anyone up for spitting on beggars and beating black children today in Helsinki?", really meant it. Having a mindset that the article's subject is normatively 'bad person', is not a good base for editing. --J. Sketter (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) No-one has tried to include every single one of the 185 messages into the article; straw man.

2) If removing controversial and critical -- albeit suitable for Wikipedia -- statements and views of a person from an article and replacing it with only content that puts them into a good light isn't whitewashing, then what is? – Sullay (Let's talk about it) 12:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You sidestepped the most of the issues, like your name-calling, a call for a proof for "several mentions on Finnish-language media", and the fact you, afaics have only been adding critical content in to Purra & Rydman articles. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wille Rydman

Then, could you tell me in plain English what you mean with your latest summary here: [1]? I removed the sentence because I thought it didn't exactly have relevance for the controversy. It's a part of his answer to a question what he thinks about racist talk (YT 4:37). Not that I 'disliked' the sentence that I added there myself at the beginning. And the only 'issue to fix' there (typo) had disappeared by the removal of the sentence. Or what issues do you mean?

You warn me not to start an edit war. Now, you Sullay 1st effectively did a rev yourself [2] with some cosmetic other chances. Then I reverted, you revd and stated I was the one who started it all? That's bold, but not very honest.

Also for this article it'd be better to discuss about the relevancies on the article discussion page. But OK, Nadbornik's testimony is self-evidently relevant, as the section "2023 racist text messages scandal" hints Rydman is a jew hating nazi. I don't see any legitimate reasoning for you to keep on removing it. And the history of Rydman & Blick relationship is also relevant, as is her involvement in the 2022 scandal in particular. --J. Sketter (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was fixing the article generally (no full name on the infobox, correct code for references, etc.) and you reverted the whole edit because apparently you didn't like me removing certain sentences from the article. You could've just copy-pasted the section(s) you wanted back into the article instead of reverting the whole edit and not fixing the things that objectively needed fixing to suit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It seems like you didn't even fully read what exactly I did in my edit and just reverted it without further inspection. Look, I see you as someone who is generally a good editor and who clearly adds good content to Wikipedia, however as someone who doesn't always see how giving context in certain situations is not only preferable, but necessary for the reader, especially if certain words/sentences quoted, as well as sources are in Finnish. I sincerely hope that you and I can come to a compromise regarding the articles that we both edit. – Sullay (Let's talk about it) 12:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]