User talk:SjShane

Welcome!

Hello, SjShane, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Here's some well-meaning advice. If you have a disagreement with another editor, go to the article's talk page and discuss it there. Obtaining "third party opinions" away from such a talk page is meaningless. Continuing to revert edits will not end well. Schwede 66 02:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless how? Seeking an opinion regarding the removal of sourced information is valid. I have responded accordingly, but the other user’s reverts continue (prior to mine) and are targeted to one specific point they personally disagree with. I am open to discussion but as this started on List of political parties in New Zealand, with removal of information obtaining to The National Party, and no other party. But I’m not really getting a response but just further reverts. This screams vandalism. SjShane (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless because these discussions have to be transparent, i.e. on that article's talk page. And a further piece of advice: I would refrain from accusing editors who have been around a lot longer than you have from engaging in vandalism. The only person that accusation reflects on badly is you yourself. Schwede 66 03:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3O states clearly, Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. I attempted discussion at Talk:List of political parties in New Zealand, but you accused me of bias and vandalism. Editors at 3O (of which there aren't many to begin with) won't look kindly on this, as you have failed to WP:assume good faith, and failed to attempt consensus at the talk page.

I don't want to just accuse you of bias in return, but you aren't doing yourself any favours with your conduct so far. I notice that your additions to the National Party infobox were your first in a while, and whether or not you're biased, you might find that you've grown attached to these changes you've made. Honestly politics is a hard place to start—even with my years of experience I try to avoid the gritty parts of it—you might find it easier to spend time on some more tractable areas of the encyclopaedia before getting into the thicket (Wikipedia:Task Center is a helpful place to start). — HTGS (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I said your edit was biased and the removal of sourced information for a lack of reason falls under vandalism, while ignoring other ideologies that would technically be considered the same error by this standard. I responded to you on the talk page but you proceeded you revert again without replying until now.

Thanks, but I will let 3O speak for themselves. Have a good day. SjShane (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3O decline

I have declined your request at WP:3O. Per the instructions on that page, there must be thorough discussion establishing a dispute before filing a request, and I did not see evidence of such discussion at Talk:List of political parties in New Zealand. I encourage you to continue the discussion there, and file a new request if you become truly deadlocked. Alternately, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, discussions are taking place now over on Talk:New Zealand National Party which is much more helpful than Edit Warring, although feel this still may require an expert opinion later on, as the sources provided are accurate, and clearly outline the definition of the ideology listed, but don’t state it by name directly. Whether this is enough is beyond my scope, but if it is not, it likely will require a look into other New Zealand political party pages and the sources provided (which may need to be done eventually anyway), including the pages currently being debated, as many sources listed do not list any of the subject matter written on the Wiki page when investigating the sources.

Unfortunately have seen many glaring errors over on New Zealand pages as of recent and some bias over what certain users feel is worthy, while content remaining that is clearly unfit for Wikipedia (like someone “enjoying jet skiing” remaining up for months, or self written bios).

Would be helpful to seek an opinion from someone unrelated to editing these pages, if there’s any suggestion for finding experts outside of 3O.

Thanks again! - SjShane (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad there's a discussion occurring. As far as getting additional opinions from people with some familiarity of the subject, your best best is likely to reach out (phrasing your request neutrally) to the relevant WikiProjects, which are listed at the top of the Talk page in question. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Party

You made changes to the party ideology parameter of the infobox, and you were reverted by three different editors (myself, The Wolak and PatricKiwi). The normal process is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You boldly made changes, and these changes were repeatedly reverted. You failed to then seek discussion at the time, but you have been offered the opportunity to do so now. Please do not continue to edit the page without finding consensus with other editors. — HTGS (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to seek discussion when exactly? Waiting twelve hours then deciding to make the decision yourself is not in good faith. You are now seeking to talk on behalf of two other users as a reason for making reverts that I believe were sorted at the time, I believe the correct process would have been to contact them and ask if they still felt the same after the information provided. The only one who has repeatedly made changes is yourself, while deciding to claim sources are not valid, and introducing outdated material. The last discussion you’ve made came down to your personal opinion. Bold, Revert, Discuss requires mutual understanding, I am trying to understand your reasoning, or even have you provide a source that counters what I have provided, but am yet to see so. SjShane (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about the correct process, and it appears that you have avoided correct process at almost every turn. The correct process would have been for you to start discussion on the article’s talk page immediately after you were reverted by any of the three editors who reverted your changes to the infobox. Instead you have doubled down on inadequately sourced claims. — HTGS (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has changed much since ten years ago when I used it frequently. As such, I was not under the impression a discussion was in order over sourced content when the only counter claim was not liking the content. I am seeking to go under the correct process now, but do not have reason to believe edit warring was the correct process on your behalf either, nor returning additional sources that were far more questionable than the ones I provided, which also suffered an issue of being over six years old. But still request you compile some evidence if you still believe I am in the wrong on this. I have sought third opinions at every turn, and attempted to find any articles or information that could counter my edits which I have provided earlier, unfortunately at best what I found showed the party held the values, but would back down on occasions due to public opinion. I’m still all ears and open to further changes, but simply need something more than personal opinions when there’s multiple articles and sources that justify the change. Have a good day. SjShane (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have you faced opposition based on personal opinions or dislike for content. Every editor who has reverted you has pointed out that your sources are inadequate and do not support the claims you made. I have personally told you this several times, so I have difficulty taking you seriously at this point. — HTGS (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again you seek to talk on behalf of other users that are not correctly engaging in this, who I believe this issue has been resolved with as they have not spoken on the talk page since I corrected them with direct quotes from the article and added an additional source. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it’s about sticking to facts which you will not provide with any sourced material. You refuse to elaborate on why you feel the sources are “inadequate”, when returning the page to outdated sources with far more topical sources that do not represent the party in it’s modern period.

The sources perfectly summarize ideology by definition, and I have provided additional sources here on this talk page that show the party values align with the same description as the ideologies listed.

Whether you take me seriously or not isn’t a factor here, until you can simply contribute counter evidence to support your reverts, there is zero reason to touch the page again, Wikipedia is not a place to imprint your own unsourced opinions, and you have already established a bias to favoring your own version when seeking for the page to reverted while protected over on. SjShane (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is English a second language for you? I find your reading of the discussion to be very often misrepresentative, and a lot of your comments are hard to follow.

I am not talking on behalf of anyone, but I’m not sure why you think the other editors are not “correctly engaging”. They made sensible edit summaries when they reverted you. Non-participation from other editors is not evidence that you are correct.

The sources are inadequate because (a) they do not explicitly label the party as you claim they do, and (b) they are opinion articles (c) from biased and involved writers. I have told you this multiple times though, which is why I ask about your English skills. If you feel that the other sources, like Te Ara, are inadequate, we can discuss those too, but my primary concern is that you have introduced inaccurate information that is not adequately sourced.

I think you are referring to my bias for the version of the page before your inadequately sourced labels were introduced. If you think I have a bias for or against the National Party, I don’t, and I don’t believe my edits on the page indicate such a bias. Once again, your misrepresenting what I said elsewhere is a problem. At the same time, having political beliefs is not banned on Wikipedia. — HTGS (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(a), neither do the sources you were reverting to, including sources listed currently under the ideology that you are not removing such as economic liberalism, most articles listed under Christian Right do not list sources directly stating the words “Christian Right”, but meet the definition by behavior. (b), articles written directly by people working with the party, that have insights to how it is operating. I have included further information on the talk page that confirms the party holds all the values listed on Social Conservative and Christian Right that you opted to ignore.

Below, is you stating users were reverting to your chosen edit which was simply not true, this was when it was article was listed as a different ideology and lacked an additional source. The implication here is that they were in opposition against the change when you had not consulted them at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mifter&diff=prev&oldid=1097364499

Above on my talk page is you talking on behalf of 3O. I suggest keeping the focus on the article and issue at hand rather than my english skills. SjShane (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you’re annoying so many people you’re managing to annoy people into existence.

Two wrongs don’t make a right; if one thing is not sourced well, that’s no excuse to add more stuff that’s not sourced well.

I never talked “on behalf” of 3O so much as I was able to read 3O, and deduce what editors there would (and did) say. Your English skills are relevant because WP:competence is required. If you’re unable to participate without accusing editors of perceived vandalism, you will be removed. — HTGS (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede 66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]