Jump to content

User talk:Callinus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Gayby Baby

I don't necessarily object to this removal, but I must confess I don't really understand a word of the edit summary. Would you be able to expand and/or explain, please? StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As background - the contribs of this user show they are a single purpose account that pushes a single perspective and edits within a single topic area, showing they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but only push the political narrative of the undisclosed connection they have to the Australian Christian Lobby - frequently they push opinion pieces as primary sources to weasel word claims that violates ATTRIBUTEPOV and PRIMARY. The user makes virtually no edits on the topic that are not partisan in objective.
The director of Gayby baby says that her film is "not an advocacy film" (guardian video - )
The SMH piece is here - the opinion of girls at the school is more relevant to the school's policies than an uninvolved Christian right moral campaigner. Note that Jensen's denomination is a member of ICCOREIS, which lobby the education minister keep details about how SRE classes include include sexual topics off the consent forms.
There are better sources for the claim that the film is political than Jensen.
Newell's mentioned SSM on Q&A in 2012 - Charles Waterstreet wrote a 2012 column on SSM - news coverage in June used the term "Gay Marriage Debate" - the "good pitch" website framed the film as political by introducing it as "At a time when Australia is divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, four children with gay and lesbian parents share their stories."
Whether the film is political or not should be based on evaluation of the content and statements by the creators - whether such a film is appropriate for Burwood Girls is mostly an issue for the principal, the DET and Piccoli. A quote from Piccoli "schools are not places for political issues to be aired" - should be used to describe the ministerial direction itself - opinion pieces aren't needed.
The user is editing in a predictable way by pushing opinion pieces and using weasel words "concern has been raised" -- Callinus (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Callinus, I created the Gayby Baby article a few months ago and I've been following your recent edits on my watchlist. Frankly I can't be bothered with trying to clean up everything that B20097 adds to the article (especially after looking at their other contributions), but I just wanted to say thanks for trying to restore some sense over there. 97198 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

BLM

My addition of the Black lives matter logo isn't WP:SOAP. I added a commonly used logo in the movement, as there is an organized effort in the movement, and this simply displays the fact. Its like showing logos for any political purpose.   Spartan7W §   18:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: See this daily beast - the article body discusses how there are "official" organizers and others as part of the hashtag movement - hashtag movements often do not have universal agreement in 100% of their aims and methods - Wikipedia describes disputes, it does not involve itself in disputes. There's no evidence that any "official" group speaks for other people using the hashtag - it is a violation of WP:DUE to present an "official" group as running the hashtag when not all of the people using the hashtag agree with the methods. Wikipedia is a reflection of secondary sources, not a soapbox for "officials" to pronounce what the coverage of the group "should" be according to the "official" perspective. -- Callinus (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Hi Callinus, it's Cityside189. I noticed your recent edits to planned parenthood, and I have a question. I was going to place this on the article's talk page, and if you think it belongs there, please let me know. The reason there were so many citations for a single idea, the recent nationwide protests, was because there was talk page discussion on whether these particular protests were notable enough for inclusion. We talked that out because if the idea of including the recent nationwide protests wasn't supported in the sources, then it's obvious that it shouldn't be included in the article. The consensus appeared to be that the recent protests were notable enough, given the substantial weight they had in the reliable sources. Is it good to supply an abundance of references to assure readers that the idea is well supported? I didn't realize that citation overkill was a possibility, but want to be careful in the future. In this particular case, do you think that removing a lot of the references is what's best? --Cityside189 (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have looked at WP:overkill and have learned more about that. I think that the current citation justifies the protest inclusion in the lede. Thanks for your work. --Cityside189 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Implications of bad faith edits

Your edit history when making this revert includes the words "Reverted good faith edits by PBS (talk):" have you ever known me to make a bad faith edit? if not why did you not revert with the words "reverted edit by PBS"?

As to the revert itself please see the talk page of the article.-- PBS (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: - it's Twinkle boilerplate -- Callinus (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I know that and I told the maintainers that I think it needs changing. However if you place a comment into the edit history you are responsible for its content. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: If you don't like the boilerplate text then it's your problem. I'm going to remove this comment as it's pointless and adds nothing. -- Callinus (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: put another way - if you think that you can prove that the boilerplate text is a CIVIL or DTTR issue then take it up elsewhere and establish precedent - my talk page does not attack precedent. If you've raised the issue before and had your contribution rejected then my talk page is not the place to raise consensus, or assert CIVIL violations when consensus hasn't been established that there is any actual issue. -- Callinus (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Talkback

Hello, Callinus. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
Message added 08:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

reverted beauty pagents

You certainly were quick to edit. The edit I made was to test out how fast the community would respond if something were incorrect, and I was impressed by your speed. Sixoften1 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)SixofTen1

You wanted Serols. Yes, auto anti-vandal tools work -- Callinus (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Can you clarify why you reverted my edit?

Hey. I noticed you reverted my inclusion of a "Citation Needed" on the Ben Carson page. I was under the impression that uncited claims need to be marked appropriately. I didn't really understand your explanation for your revert and was hoping you could should some light on what exactly I did wrong. Thelivingparadox (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thelivingparadox: read WP:LEAD specifically WP:LEADCITE - there's no consensus that any of the material is controversial. The citation for the claim is in the article body:

* In 2008, the White House awarded Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. "Hopkins Surgeon Ben Carson Receives Medal of Freedom". Johns Hopkins University/Hospital. June 20, 2008. Retrieved May 9, 2015.

Lead sections are meant to sum up the article body, and lead sections that sum up cited information do not need cites unless the information is likely to be challenged - and the material is not controversial, so you shouldn't force cites to be included unless there's consensus that the material needs the cites in the article body in the lead section.
Also read the essay tag bombing - it's generally considered poor form to put highly visible tags on high traffic articles, rather than raising issues on talk or just improving the article in the way you want improved. -- Callinus (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

SYNTH at Umpqua

It appears you went from "mother said in an online forum years ago that she had an AR-15" to "the long gun he had at the crime scene was an AR-15". That's WP:SYN and we can't do it, even though a Google search shows that Del-Ton is an AR-15 variant. I'd fix this, but I'm having trouble separating this from your other edits. Can you take a look at reversing this? Thanks. By the way, if you and others would support my simplification proposal, the AR-15 problem would vanish. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015)

In this edit [1], the MFA is being used to cite Israel's own policy. that is not a COI when citing their own government as there is nothing to dispute there.

When citing MFA for Palestine or something, then I see your COI issue. but this is Israel itself. Requesting you to self-revert.

Also the other ref is for the other part of the content in the sentence too.Lihaas (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

David Daleiden

It doesn't appear that you assumed good faith when reverting on David Daleiden. I understand that you justified the wording of the article on the talk page, but that doesn't mean the User:Maiselle's edit was "vandalism". Especially since it was an individual justification that you made, and not a reached consensus that you were defending. So without even taking into account the fact that we aren't supposed to WP:bite the newbies (two warnings for one edit?), I don't see how the level-2 warning templates were appropriate. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Hermionedidallthework addition of the unsourced word "terrorist" is a clear and obvious form of BLP vandalism. The rollback reverted two edits. -- Callinus (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You're correct in assuming that I overlooked the other edit. Thanks for pointing that out. My concern about the user warning templates still stands though, and I would be careful not to be seen as trying to be the WP:OWNER of the article. Thanks for hearing me out. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

DYK for 2015 Thalys train attack

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Carson

Note that the whole political positions section is now ready to be replaced with a summary, because I replicated its content at political positions of Ben Carson.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant thanks for the message. I saw your comment on talk and agree, the MOS was becoming a mess.-- Callinus (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I am prohibited from editing in the abortion area by Wikipedia's arbitration committee. Therefore, I cannot replace the political positions material at Ben Carson with a summary. But anyone else can do so, per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for shortening the political positions material at Ben Carson, but it's still way too long, much longer than what you find in articles like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush for example. So feel free to be bold and cut it back. I have just cut back one section here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You can try to cut crap out of the sub-article "Political positions of Ben Carson" but other editors may not like it, because WP:Summary style generally works the other way: i.e. usual practice would say to cut Ben Carson, not Political positions of Ben Carson. I expect that the Ben Carson article will be getting a LOT more readers than the sub-article, so that's another reason why you may want to focus your efforts on cutting stuff from Ben Carson. Maybe you are already aware of all this stuff, but maybe not, so I thought it worth mentioning to you now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I share Anythingyouwant's concerns. The sub-article should not be summarized at all. It should contain ALL details, ALL the original formatting, including headings, etc.. Use your summarizing skills on the main article. The summary should be one section, with 2-4 paragraphs, and no subheadings. The proper thing to do is to start by making a good lead of the sub-article, and use that for your content. I explained how on the talk page there.
Another thing that's worrying is that your deletions look very much like censorship of the sub-article. Don't delete that content. It's a violation of NPOV, and we don't compare other articles in that way. Articles develop differently, and what happens elsewhere (bad things thought to be good things) should not be considered a model for doing the same bad things here. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened in my edit, but I goofed. Sorry about that. I only wanted to include the whole quote documenting his divergence from SDA beliefs on the age of the earth. Your deletion removed that important detail. (My edit summary explained much more than I actually intended to do in that edit.) I'll comment on that above. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion now continues here, which is a better place. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Atomic 7 homepage blacklist -> whitelist

Hello Callinus, I have just requested the band's homepage URL for whitelisting at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#atomic7brandladiesshoes.com. Just a fyi, as you have been cleaning up that article in the past, or incase you have additional background information. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe I just tried to remove some blacklist tags. It seems like a bunch of anti-spam rules got added and only later overblocking is mainly the responsibility of users. -- Callinus (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

2015 Colorado Springs shooting edit

2015_Colorado_Springs_shooting, mass murder, according to the mass murder article and the FBI source there say that mass murder is 3 or more killings. The mass shooting article differs in definition of mass murder, but the article of mass murder and mass shooting are two different subjects and articles, and the article of the name with a reliable source should probably be used in case of discrepancy. This was discussed in the talk section of the article which you chose to disregard before editing. Xmzx (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good edit

[2] is fine. Why, I ask myself, didn't I just ask you to revise your remarks, rather than revdelete? Regards. Edison (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Where is "partof" used correctly?

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_San_Bernardino_shooting&diff=693823635&oldid=693823631 Can you point to its correct use on an article to substantiate your position? Otherwise, it should be used. Bod (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The San_Bernardino_shooting is not "part of" an official military campaign with its own article. It is alleged to be a form of Islamic terrorism, but not proven to be "part of" a campaign or movement. -- Callinus (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callinus/Archive_4&oldid=1145994387"