User talk:RoxySaunders

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, RoxySaunders, 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! RegentsPark (comment) 22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know

I don't know why the other user is so heavy about the climate of my city if he first used an unrealiable site and also unsourced data.

I have tried to explain why is he wrong (the data was there from 2015 by the way) and I have also added useful information about the climate of Elche made by the Universidad Miguel Hernández which is the university of the city of Elche. I don't know why he wanted to change that data and I kindly explained why he shouldn't.

I have also received bad mood messages and he called me dumb in one of the edit summaries, I just don't understand why he changed 5 year old data and he just reverts any data he doesn't like, even if I kindly explain why that data is actually closer to reality as Elche doesn't have any long term recording station. He should be more kind when editing, insults are not necessary. --31.4.227.63 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. I have also replied in Elche's talk page. --31.4.227.63 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Central Park jogger case

In regards to the [Central Park jogger case], you state:

"Because the case is discussed by reliable sources as an instance of possible racial profiling, ..."

Except, the case is discussed as an "instance of possible racial profiling" by the police of the original suspects. It is NOT discussed as racial profiling of the women who were attacked for being white, as they were of various races as noted in the article's introduction.

"... it is relevant and neutral to note that The Jogger was white, as well as to note that the alleged perpetrators were Black or Latino."

It's not neutral. NPOV would be not citing any races.

Why it is relevant? Some of other women who were attacked and raped weren't white. So, why must she be singled out as being a /white/ victim of rape and not just a victim of rape? Is there somehow a difference is she was a /black/ victim of rape or /Hispanic/ victim etc? She wasn't the only white victim and not all of the victims where white. So, what is the revelance of mentioning race here? As noted in the article,

"Like the defendants in the case, three of the victims were Black or Latino."

There were 8 women who were raped for this case. 5 victims were white. 3 weren't, being "Black or Latino". So, this wasn't an instance of racial profiling of white women to rape them, nor was it purely a racially-based hate crime against white women. Race wasn't a motivating factor for the perpetrator. If it isn't an instance of racial profiling of white women to commit rape, then mentioning that one of the women who were attacked was white has no relevance, except to incite race baiting.

In other words, race only needs to be mentioned in regards to the people who were falsely accused (minorities) by the (presumed, predominantly white) police based upon their minority race. The races of the victims are irrelevant - being of multiple races.