User talk:Tol: Difference between revisions
→Natural Born Citizens: explained point |
|||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
:::I fail to understand your point. The quote and preceding text clearly stated that although Lafayette was French-born, he was given natural-born status. The sentence which you added was unnecessary and against the Manual of Style. [[User:Tol|Tol]] | [[User_talk:Tol|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tol|Contribs]] 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC) |
:::I fail to understand your point. The quote and preceding text clearly stated that although Lafayette was French-born, he was given natural-born status. The sentence which you added was unnecessary and against the Manual of Style. [[User:Tol|Tol]] | [[User_talk:Tol|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tol|Contribs]] 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
the point there is that lafayete wasn't "given" natural citizenship. in the united states, you aren't "given" something that you have naturally. that's why i was trying to draw attention to the fact that the founding assembly stated that all of mankind has an equal station and inalienable natural right to liberty under nature's god. it's in the first paragraph of when the country was announced: at the top of the declaration of independence. lafayette's case is a good example of why you can't be "given" your natural right. |
the point there is that lafayete wasn't "given" natural citizenship. in the united states, you aren't "given" something that you have naturally. that's why i was trying to draw attention to the fact that the founding assembly stated that all of mankind has an equal station and inalienable natural right to liberty under nature's god. it's in the first paragraph of when the country was announced: at the top of the declaration of independence. lafayette's case is a good example of why you can't be "given" your natural right.--[[Special:Contributions/151.196.126.78|151.196.126.78]] ([[User talk:151.196.126.78|talk]]) 05:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:17, 23 April 2021
This is Tol's talk page, where you can send him or her messages and comments. Please:
|
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Hello; feel free to leave me a message for any reason – I appreciate feedback!
Speedy deletion nomination of Big Mori
Dear @Tol: , Hello, I hope this email is finding you well in these hard times. Big Mori is someone who, in the youngest age possible, was able to become the president of WABBA International, a fitness organization around the world. He is an international body building champion, with this age he was able to get a bunch of medals from international competitions. He follows his fitness goal with education and integrity and has even written a few books and is in the worlds of making another one. It's been a few years since he is a professional singer, releasing a bunch of tracks, music videos, and is available on all platforms around the world, internationally. With the sanctions happening in Iran and the hardship people must endure to achieve their goals, he was able to become successful and be a great motivator and inspiration and role model for the young people of the world. A bunch of interviews have been done with Big Mori, on many platforms such as tv shows, newspapers, magazines, social medias, radio which have been all linked in the references at the bottom of his wikipedia page, I hope after reading this message will allow his wikipedia page to be published . please tell me what I can do to avoid this deletion. Thank you for the time you have put into giving us your attention And Thank you from the bottom of my heart.P@yam (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Payamkermanshahi: Thank you for sending me a message. I had nominated the article for speedy deletion, which provides for uncontroversial deletions where consensus does not need to be reached. It seems that Big Mori may be notable — and, as nobody has responded to the speedy deletion tag after a few days, it seems that nobody wants to make the decision of either deleting it or removing the speedy deletion tag. As such, I have removed the tag. However, the article still requires substantial cleanup; I will also try to help with that. Sincerely, Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tol: I very appreciate you, and i really need to your aid.i'm waiting here your suggestions, every time possible for you. P@yam (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Just information
I have every reason to believe you were trying to be helpful here. I just wanted to let you know that directing veteran users (and a former admin) around the project might seem presumptuous. It's true that there are nooks and crannies around Wikipedia that I've never encountered but it's always best to err on the side of caution. Tiderolls 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tide rolls: Thanks for the note; I wasn't aware that he was an experienced user. Given the blocked user's obvious vandalism, I felt it may be helpful to leave a note. And as for nooks and crannies, I recently found set index articles, which are lists of things with similar names (but not disambiguation pages)! Thanks, Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 19:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Title of Shooting of Rekia Boyd
That innocent girl was murdered. All too often i see articles of victims of police murders not calling it what it is: Murder. "Shooting of" is weird and dodgy, purposely avoiding calling it what it really is. I dont know how to change wikipedia article titles so can you please do it for me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma x irelia (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Karma x irelia: Thank you for leaving a message. The article titles policy states that good titles should be neutral; there is also a neutral point of view policy. In this case, Dante Servin was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. While I agree that this verdict is highly questionable, there is a living persons policy with a section on people accused of crime which states that
a living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law
. Changing the article title would imply that Servin murdered Boyd, which would be neither neutral or compliant with policy. As such, I will not move the article for you. However, I can point you to the requested moves process, where you can propose that the article be moved. The instructions on requesting a move are here. Sincerely, Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The entire natural born citizen article on wikipedia article talks about how natural born citizens have to be born in the usa or to usa parents. Lafayete is indeed an obvious example of the fact that this is false. However, because of how small that note is: it is not obvious. Therefore, I do not believe it goes against any "style" to point out that it should be noted, since the entire wikipedia article contradicts that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @151.196.126.78: In your edit (diff #1019200159), you used
It should be noted that
, which is against MOS:EDITORIAL, part of the manual of style. You also repeated what the quote and preceding text said — that Lafayette wasFrench-born
, but he and his male heirs weretaken to be natural born Citizens
. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- so "natural born citizens" means french-born? the entire premise is that the united states said that people are not "born into servitude." or "born into french etc" it literally said "all men are created with liberty under the natural rights of man and any government that threatens this right should be altered or abolished." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to understand your point. The quote and preceding text clearly stated that although Lafayette was French-born, he was given natural-born status. The sentence which you added was unnecessary and against the Manual of Style. Tol | Talk | Contribs 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
the point there is that lafayete wasn't "given" natural citizenship. in the united states, you aren't "given" something that you have naturally. that's why i was trying to draw attention to the fact that the founding assembly stated that all of mankind has an equal station and inalienable natural right to liberty under nature's god. it's in the first paragraph of when the country was announced: at the top of the declaration of independence. lafayette's case is a good example of why you can't be "given" your natural right.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)