User talk:City of Silver/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:City of Silver. 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 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

DC Public LIbrary Police

Good afternoon,

My name is George Williams. I am the public information officer for the DC Public Library. My job is simple. I make sure that the information that is reported on the library is accurate. The section on the library police was not. Not only did it not happen. There was no source information supporting it being included. It looks poorly to have a Library fight with Wikipedia about accurate information. But the fight would only highlight a long-brewing discussion. (GeorgeWilliamsDCPL (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Your username automatically raises a red flag and you really can't deny that you have a conflict of interest. However, I looked at your edit and Googled a few things from the section you removed. The information appeared, as you said, to be entirely fictional. When an anonymous vandal undid your edit a few days later, I undid that edit and restored your work as soon as I noticed what happened. Another vandal restored the fake stuff yet again, and you removed it, but when you did, you also accidentally removed an image that should have stayed. That made you appear to be a vandal and your edit was promptly undone.

Right now, the fake stuff and the image are both gone. I'm going to try to restore the image. I'm also going to leave a note on the article's page that is only visible when the page is being edited. This note will tell people not to restore any claims about library police unless the claims are sourced. (And not to worry: Claims like that won't be sourced because they are fictional.) Please be more careful in the future because the image you removed accidentally was a good addition to that page, and you removed it when you also removed the vandalism.

At this point, your best bet is to stay at that article's talk page and raise issues there because your conflict of interest is enough of a problem that if you continue to edit that article, you're likely to be blocked. I'll keep an eye on that talk page and I'll settle any issues you raise there. CityOfSilver 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CityOfSilverSig template

Just to let you know, I've moved Template:CityOfSilverSig to User:CityOfSilver/Sig as it's too user-specific to be a template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid something like this would happen. I created that template because my signature contained, if I recall correctly, 283 characters, which is too many for the sig box under "My Preferences." That sig box contained the terminology "{{CityOfSilverSig}}", and your deletion screwed up my signature. It wasn't merely a template I created for no reason; it got used every single time I signed a comment. Could you please restore the template, or tell me what to put in the sig box to make sure my signature shows up when I sign comments? The page you created doesn't appear to work, and neither does a redirect. CityOfSilver 22:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In your sig box, put {{User:CityOfSilver/Sig}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Testing: CityO fSilver 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And there it is again. Thank you. CityO fSilver 22:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Articles for deletion/No. 213 Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets

That is very true! He, in fact, is not a douche. I would be extremely concerned if he was. Have a lovely evening! Darcy.cartwright (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a good reason for implying that he was one, then. CityO fSilver 15:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in Punjab (India)

This isn't personal Comentry, read the works of ram naryan kumar, cynthia mahmood and Joyce pettigrew. All say those incidents were the wrk of Indian govt funded thugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.45.233 (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to that article was extremely inflammatory and not sourced. And no matter what, unless you're quoting someone, using a term like "thugs" to refer to living people, no matter who, will probably get you blocked. Did you read that policy I linked to on your talk page? It says in plain language that edits like yours aren't allowed. See also our guideline on sourcing; merely listing several writers isn't how you source things. CityO fSilver 18:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken Campbell - evangelist edits

Hi City of Silver: Regarding your deletion of the link to the Gerald Hannon article, as the CBC news clip specifically mentions the article, this is legitimate contextual information, not point of view pushing. In my opinion, Campbell's statement should stand on its own, without the interpretive clause "equates all gays" which does not necessarily follow from the interview. "Group" could legitimately refer to the publishers of the article in the context. I have chosen not to dispute your other edits. Thank you, AJDKS (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)AJDKS

Replied on the article's talk page. CityO fSilver 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ajax High School

I am sorry, are you saying that the high school did not win LOSSA? We did and I would appreciate it if you did not remove that we won a gold medal at LOSSA. I was not self promoting myself, Nick Houston and I did bring the team to that victory. I do not like how you assume that every edit is a piece of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylermichaelson (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you need to not add this information unless you're ready to add similar information for other championships that Ajax teams have won. If you don't, it comes off like you're patting yourself on the back and that's not allowed. CityO fSilver 00:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, so if I were to add other championships my addition will stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylermichaelson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you leave your name off of it and it's encyclopedic, it could work. If you use your name, it's gone as a self-promotional edit and a conflict of interest. (It might be a conflict of interest even if you don't use your name.) CityO fSilver 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Stereotype Threat

CityofSilver:

You deleted some laboriously constructed paragraphs that I added to the Stereotype Threat entry, commenting "Not encyclopedic, possible original research or copypaste". I am kind of mystified, since these were contributed in good faith to enhance the Wikipedia page.

Rather than launching a battle of reversions, I would like to extend you courtesy and follow this Wikipedia rule:

Assume good faith

"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."

even though it is not clear from your actions that you have done likewise. In any case, I am seeking to launch what I hope might be a respectful discussion here.

So turning to your points, these paragaphs were not copypasted from anything else (if you google some of the text in quotes you can verify this). The content was not original research--every single claim was backed up by citations to e.g., publications from the Educational Testing Service and the Harvard Economics Department, among other things. They are obviously highly pertinent to the real-world validity of stereotype threat, which is what most readers ultimately care about, no? When you say they are "not encyclopedic", the only thing I can see that you might mean would be that they provide too much detail about particular studies? I could see that criticism, although the details seemed to me likely to interest readers. I have noticed that "natural experiments" tend to get covered in some detail in Wikipedia because they are inherently interesting to readers, e.g., see entry on Freakonomics. The paragraphs I contributed do not seem to me to contain any editorializing--they state facts rather than characterizing anything, and again, they are backed up by appropriate citations.

Please elaborate on your concerns so that we can improve the article together.

FOLLOW-UP: I see that you posted a talk message to me referring to "promotional material". I am now even more puzzled. There is nothing in my post that promotes any website or product. Nor do I have any conflict of interest with regard to any of it: I do not work for ETS, and I am not the author of any of the material cited in the posting, if that's what you mean by "promotional". Now I am wondering if my choice of a user name Psych_Content_Updater made you think that I am some sort of commercial bot or something? I just picked a name that comported with what I was trying to do--update some content pertaining to psychology.

Psych Content Updater (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith at any point. On the contrary, I viewed you then and I view you know as an editor with the best intentions since you have given me no reason to think you mean to hurt Wikipedia. Please read the Assume the Assumption of Good Faith essay, since assuming bad faith without strong evidence is a bad approach to things.

But I didn't do what I should have in this situation. As you know, I listed several issues with your edit, any of which could have been right. I did not accuse you of wrongdoing. But I failed to point you to the original research policy, and I was wrong to post a generic "promotional" warning rather than a more specific mention of what my issue might have been. I sometimes post those ready-made warnings, then immediately edit what I just did to specify what my issue is. I didn't do that here, I should have, and I apologize.

The commentary issue I had was with this: "...almost all studies of stereotype threat have been conducted within the lab." That may be true and such a truth may partially invalidate stereotype threat studies, but without a source, it reads like you're opining. My other issue, and this is specifically what in your edit raised a red flag, is with the sentence immediately following that one. "As many observers have pointed out, lab studies may not generalize to the real world for a variety of reasons." That's problematic per our no original research policy's specific rule against combining reliably-sourced claims to make a claim not found in sources. See WP:SYNTH for what exactly I'm talking about. I found the essay you used to source your claim of "many observers" and as near as I can tell, it doesn't even mention "stereotype threat." (I definitely could have missed it because that is a pretty thick, wonky essay and I'm so not an economist that I couldn't understand half of the Freakonomics stuff.) CityO fSilver 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, now I see your point. The sourcing can definitely be improved with a little more research--which I will try to do--and based on what you say I think I can also improve and condense what I had posted. BTW, the existing Stereotype Threat entry is really pretty good--comprehensive and well-written and balanced--and I am not trying to mess it up. The only flaw I see with it is that all the discussion is focused on the lab studies and I don't think the writers were aware of a few studies (few in number but very interesting) that looked at large samples from the real world and natural experiments relating to Stereotype Threat. I just want to add mention of those in in a way that will be useful to readers, and I will try to do that in a balanced way that fits better with Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your feedback, and I'll add a follow-up note when I have some reworked language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psych Content Updater (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. And as for this, "I am not trying to mess it up," I know. I never thought otherwise. That was a lot of work you did, way more than you would have done had you intended to do harm. CityO fSilver 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring

Do you know what refactoring a comment means? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. CityO fSilver 19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And is adding a hatnote refactoring? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I have restored this comment over its author's objection. CityO fSilver

Yes. I should have said as much in the edit summary, but I thought it was obviously what I meant. CityO fSilver 19:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrej Vučković

The article Andrej Vučković has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Hey there, City i know we had a dispute a while back and i hope weve made up, this is just a quick message really wishing you seasons greetings :) hope all is well. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)}^(Complain) 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of V-Nasty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article V-Nasty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V-Nasty (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your reply on talk:Juniper berry. i called 911, and i,m fine. thank you for your concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake1993811 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Murtz Jaffer - Page keeps getting vandalized

Hi there,

My Wikipedia page (Murtz Jaffer) keeps getting vandalized today and I know you have fixed it before. Would you mind keeping an eye on it? Somebody keeps changing the body of the text to read "Murtz Jaffer is a tool" and because they are not a registered user, I can't report them.

Thanks 99.245.31.12 (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been indefinitely protected since you posted this. That means no non-registered user, including you, can edit it. You should get an account but you should also read up about our conflict-of-interest policy. CityO fSilver 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Kony categorization

This is a content discussion. I moved it to Talk:Joseph Kony#Joseph Kony categorization.

On the 20th of October you undid my correction on the article about Joseph Kony regarding to his categorization. I didn't give the matter much thought then but now I believe it is a matter open for discussion. Joseph Kony's group has enough qualities that justify its categorization as a guerilla group rather than a terrorist group which in turn means that categorizing Joseph Kony as a guerilla group leader is more appropriate. It has the goal of overthrowing the legal government, it operates within a given country, it occupies land, it has armed forces, and it engages in guerilla warfare, that is it openly attacks the army under the command of the legal government. Without having the intention to belittle the group's attrocities I have to point out that these are employed by armies and guerilla groups in many cases and are not something distinctive of terrorist groups. The fact that it employs terror is not enough by itself to categorize it as a terrorist group. I think that calling Joseph Kony a guerilla group leader is valid and that the Joseph Kony article should be updated to reflect this.Nxavar (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, and I might not because it's been awhile, I initially inserted the word "terrorist" because of then-recent news that the U.S. State Department had declared Kony a terrorist. Whether or not it's true that Kony is a terrorist isn't relevant because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Is State not a reliable source? I think it is. But maybe not. State has a stake in this, since anyone who captures or kills Kony stands to benefit from the "terrorist" designation. That's totally fair. I don't feel that is enough to take away State's reliability because I don't see any reason they would say such a thing without very, very good reason. That was my initial take on it.

But that was my first edit. If I recall correctly, which (again) I might not, I reverted you per WP:OBVIOUS. The LRA meets all the "guerrilla group" standards you've laid out, true, and I agree with you that they are guerrillas. But there's more to it than the guerrilla standards. They have, under orders from Kony, committed atrocities, including murder, rape, and forced conscription. I feel that it goes to motivation. Why did Kony order, and the LRA commit, those crimes? Religious and political beliefs. If religion or politics motivates someone to commit crimes against people, that person is a terrorist, full stop. I strongly disagree that such actions "are not...distinctive of terrorist groups." Every army that has ever engaged in any prolonged conflict has contained murderers and rapists. That does not reflect on the army's legitimacy. The difference is, no true army in the world, guerrilla or not, compels its members to rape and deliberately kill civilians.

The problem is, WP:OBVIOUS is picky and this definitely doesn't fit that guideline's "Jimbo Wales is male" standard. And I admit I can't find a reliable source like the New York Times or the BBC that has specifically called Kony a "terrorist." This is the closest I can come, and that writer, apparently a college student, seems awfully biased. (Here's the search that took me to that paper.) Plenty of reliable sources used the "T" word to refer to Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden, and maybe there's a good reason they haven't used it to refer to Kony. It's not wishy-washy, though, on whether his group reflects on him. If he knowingly orders people to commit acts of terrorism, we can call him a terrorist per WP:OBVIOUS.

So it's definitely not a black-or-white thing. The gray area is huge. Maybe we should change it to something like, "guerrilla leader who has been designated a terrorist by the State Department of the United States of America for crimes against humanity including murder, rape, and forced conscription." CityO fSilver 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My original motivation for changing the categorization of Joseph Kony as a terrorist was that I'm sick of "terrorist-label" abuse and it really makes Wikipedia look less credible when it succumbs to that. I believe that the current form of the article is more balanced and closer to a neutral point of view. Regarding the extreme attrocities of the guerilla group I think that it's unfair to examine them out of context. Sub-saharian African conflicts are long-known for their extreme brutality. The group is acting whithin a certain greater "tradition of warfare" and when this is taken into account the acts that are too extreme for the Western Civilization cannot be characterized as too extreme, as far as judging whether the group is a terrorist group or not goes. It should also be pointed out that the U.S. government didn't designate Joseph Kony a terrorist up until 2008, while Joseph Kony was acting like a terrorist for many years before that. Having said that, I wish to thank you for accepting the correctment this time. Nxavar (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)