User talk:PerpetuityGrat

sunnydeveloper

I disagree that moving the section on the Catholic church's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Canada) residential school murder of children to the page about Kamloops school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School) is appropriate, and is in fact the type of systemetic racism that resulted in this story being hidden for so long.

That would be like removing the reference to holocost from the page about Nazi Germany, to just be on a specific camp.

This was one school, but we know there are children's bodies at most if not all other residential schools operated by the Canadian catholic church

This is not a matter of opinion, its factual that the church oversaw schools where children died. Kamloops is but one school.

I agree it was placed in the wrong section (population) but it could be moved up, or down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:187F:2600:89C4:9164:1B41:5DEE (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, Kamloops is but one school. Events occur every day. Some horrific, some very positive. But that doesn't mean that they should go into an overarching article. Looking at the United States here in reference to the Parkland shooting or any other mass shooting; there's no mention of any mass shooting there. However, in the Florida page, there is one sentence that mentions it. Not conflating anything here, but every notable event is not worth mentioning in overarching articles. Probably best to keep it to Kamloops Indian Residential School, Diocese of British Columbia, or something like that. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The death of at least 3200 children is not a random event that occurs every day, it's not even comparable to school shootings, which are not governed by the same organization. These residential schools were governed by the Catholic Church, systemically seeking to erase the culture of indigenous people in Canada (the proposed edit is for Canadian Catholic WIkipedia page, not the entire Catholic School Wikipedia).

"The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Indigenous students with inappropriate education, often only up to lower grades, that focused mainly on prayer and manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing."

These are not *horrible incidents that happen every day*, this was a system of oppression and harm enabled by the Canadian Catholic Church, as articles cite. This was present accross ALL residential schools, and thus a much bigger story than one school page.

The Catholic Church ran most of Canada's residential schools, remains silent about their devestating legacy. (and we are helping them by omitting this history from their wikipedia page.

@2604:3D08:187F:2600:89C4:9164:1B41:5DEE:/@Sunnydeveloper: Okay, I had not seen that commission report and am totally unfamiliar with that commission or its mission. That is a very large figure. Take it to the page, but don't create a new section named "Criminal history," but rather something like "Native American schools," and maybe a subsection to elaborate on what the schools did, and talk about the murders there. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seuss

Hello PerpetuallyGrat,

I asked "How can it be incorrect when it is basically saying the same thing?" on this difference, which you reverted

May I ask you about the difference between your "citing racist imagery" and my "imagery they deemed racist and insensitive"?

The only difference I can see is that my version makes it clear that this is the publisher's judgment, not Wikipedia's. According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not endorse such judgements.

Neither is quoting the exact words used by Dr. Seuss Enterprises ("portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong").

Now, I don't object if you insist on "hurtful and wrong" being quoted (but note it wasn't cited on the Mulberry article before either) but that these books "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" is not an objective fact, especially not equally for all six books. Your insertion of or reversion to "because they portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" however claims that they are indeed. And that goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Str1977: I understand where you are coming from, but WP:NPOV just means adding content without editorial bias. When we are specifically talking about Dr. Seuss Enterprise's decision, we need to avoid editorial bias. Stating their decision plain and simple is neutral in nature. To add any editorializing deviates from that. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is "editorial bias" if we word it in such a way to appear that DSE withdrew the books because of some indisputable fact. They withdrew it because of their judgment.

For example, we can write: "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon" (that he walked is a fact) or "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon because to them this showed that the US was superior to the USSR, overcoming the Sputnik shock." (that they thought that is a fact) We cannot write "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon because this showed that the US was superior to the USSR, overcoming the Sputnik shock." (that it really showed that is an opinion, not a fact).

And it doesn't matter one bit whether we share that opinion or not - I happen to agree with that moon landing sentiment, at least to an extent, but I would still oppose such language on WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Str1977: I understand where you are coming from, but to skew the direct quote from DRS is not appropriate. Another sentence to talk about the reception of their decision would be appropriate. Also, there is no WP "pillar violation" while trying to maintain an NPOV. Agreeing or disagreeing with content, or skewing it directly, violates a NPOV. TLDR, you can't just say "it's racist." There is no pillar that you're referring to that says we have to endorse/agree with the content. If the sources say one thing, go with the sources. In this case, the sources do not support what you are trying to allege. Many sources agree that DRS works have racist imagery, I am not disputing that at all, but to say that DRS withdrew their books because of racist imagery is just not factually accurate. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing page about me containing irrelevant info

Hi PerpetuityGrat I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to slowly fix a page that was made about me and is full of information that is irrelevant or no longer has online references outside of an archive - what am I doing wrong? YuulaBuula (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YuulaBuula: welcome, and I was actually about to leave you a note on your talk page. I don't think you are doing anything wrong, per se. It seems like the subject of the article (presumably you), lacks notability. What I mean by that is that the notability of the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's standard (see WP:NOTE for more details). In layman's terms, every individual who has published works or had their work featured is not necessarily notable or encyclopedia worthy. It looks like the article was deleted previously (back in 2011?) but someone re-created the page. Your edits to the content of the article are fine, that is why I have not changed anything about the content specifically. I have only added templates, which are displayed at the top of the article. These templates describe issues with the article. The most recent template I added was a request for the page to be deleted. I am totally happy to help you out here, as Wikipedia can be very confusing and technical. If you believe that the subject of the article is indeed notable, you can reply on the talk page. You can edit the information freely on the page, as long as it abides by Wikipedia standards - keep doing that. But I do believe that the subject of the article is not notable, which is why I have recommended that the page be deleted. I desperately hope this makes sense! Feel free to reach out! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Thank you for that explanation - sorry to ask here but what constitutes a "reliable" source? I cited articles / interviews in art magazines - is that not considered a reliable source? I don't really know how to edit or have time to learn right now (hence deleting the "template" over and over - sorry - I just noticed your messages in the comment section) and would rather the page be deleted than have info that isn't relevant anymore (people's art practices change and it was embarrassing to have that stuff on there). YuulaBuula (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Already a pro 4 weeks in :) Hillelfrei ^talk 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, quite amazing, the level of proficiency achieved in that time. Indeed, within mere hours of account creation, this editor appears to have reached expert level. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Miller

By the way, the right-wing populism category as been used for people long before I started editing with pages like Donald Trump and Josh Hawley.

But Either way, Ideologically, Mary Miller is among the Nationalist Republicans.

She has a track record of being one of the Republicans with a nationalist rehtoric.

Admittedly, not every Republican is nationalist (most probably aren't), but some are like Donald Trump Fenetrejones (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: Ok fair about the populism category, but in general, BLP articles ought to only include categories about the subject themselves, not some ideology they may identify with. Now, in terms of assigning the "nationalist" title to several politicians... repeatedly you are citing a source that doesn't even mention the word "nationalist," yet you are using that as your citation. Why are you doing this? You are misleading WP users completely and inserting incorrect information.

@PerpetuityGrat: Fair enough on the populist category, I didn't know any better because it was already like that but back to the nationalist category. And sorry If I didn't clarify what I am about to say above. I was in the middle of typing what is below. It doesn't inherently have to say the word nationalism, but embrace a form of nationalism. America First (Policy) is a form of nationalism. Not every Republican though is an embrace of this policy and rhetoric.

All of these Republicans are known to be America First (Policy) which is the American Nationalism of Trump. But sorry for not being clear enough, Wikipedia itself counts America First (Policy) as American Nationalism. (Sources not included if already listed)

Examples that are not Trump Republican types include (Doesn't inherently equal anti Trump): Libertarian Types like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, Trump Critics like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, and Mainstream Republicans like Mitch McConnell Fenetrejones (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Note not every Republican who objected to the results are America First (Policy) Nationalist type, but some of them are Fenetrejones (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: I'm glad we agree on the populism front. Regarding the nationalism.. a tweet, a vote, or an affiliation with a group does not definitively mean that such individual is a nationalist, socialist, or any other title for that fact. Unless it is cited by a credible source, and the source actually uses the word "nationalist," it probably isn't worth mentioning in the article - it can't be mentioned since it's unsourced. Hope this clears things up!

In terms of those names listed above, there are many other WP users who watch those pages, and I am not here to revolutionize Wikipedia. Making small edits on regular articles is all I come here for. I don't want to poke the beast and edit the "hot" articles.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Oh no, it is okay. I should have just clarified that in the articles. With regard to who should be counted, if they are described as Trump Loyalist or America First (policy) type than they should be counted as nationalist type because that is what the America First Policy is right. I am not trying to revolutionize anything. It is just simple information.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: Not so sure about that... and I say that because there are some folks who support Medicare for All, which by many is described as a socialist policy. I wouldn't say that supporting that policy automatically marks them as a socialist. You can be associated with a policy, but that doesn't mark someone as a socialist. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat:, But the Wikipedia article doesn't mark Single-payer healthcare as a socialist policy. America First (policy) however is a variant of Nationalism popularized by Trump where even Wikipedia says that.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categorizes America First (Policy) as nationalism, but does not describe single payer health care as socialism. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: okay, that was just an example I mustered up. Regardless, if sources do not say that an individual is X, you cannot mention that that individual is X. Association of or with Y does not mean X. If something hints at X, that does not mean that you can mention that that individual is X. It's all about the source. As I said above, if you can find a source that says that an individual is X, go ahead and include that. But we're not seeing that here with the nationalist title. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did misread the one for Mo Brooks, but I did find some on Miller that confirms it. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April

Your recent editing history at Mary Miller (politician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bacondrum 22:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: thanks, we've addressed that in the immediate section above. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2028

	ahead of the curb
	great Idea making the page 2028 ahead PbesartBekteshi (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portal bar removal

Hi PG, can I just check whether you had a consensus for the mass removal of portal bars from biographical articles. A query's been raised at the Portal project. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt no I did not. If there is a consensus indicating why they should be included, I'll happily reinsert them. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimately, if there is a valid consensus as to include a link to the United States Portal because a subject is involved with an aspect of American culture, or include a link to the Biography Portal because the article is a BLP, I would love to see that. I noticed more than a few pages had those bars deleted, and others had not. To me they are nothing more than a See also section, where we might as well include Portal:Earth if it existed. If I am totally in the wrong I am happy to revert those changes. But I haven't seen anything indicating that. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt I might also add that these portals were added by one user who is no longer active on WP. It's possible that they had a consensus when they mass added these portals, but I doubt that since half of their added portals to actors' pages were deleted. Half of them were not. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:Kendalandrew

Hoping to start a discussion here on User:Kendalandrew.
@ProcrastinatingReader:
@Edwardx:
Since it seems that the three of us are trying to repair the articles that User:Kendalandrew has been editing, I thought I would call us here to discuss. The edits by User:Kendalandrew violate so many guidelines and policies, I decided to removed all the recent content. I really hate to do that, but the content is unencyclopedic in nature and... well WP:NOW. I saw one of your edits in recent changes and honestly did not know what can of worms I would find. Wow. To me it seems as if the user is hell-bent on vilifying (via WP:UNDUE everyone involved with this apparent controversy. I know nothing about whatever is being alleged in the sources, but it really looks like to me that they are not here to improve Wikipedia.
Articles affected:

--PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a WP:ANI; hopefully admin action will be taken. The articles will still need trimming as appropriate, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I completely agree. Thank you for doing that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Why do you have that section of "Articles I've created"? I removed them, and you reverted with an edit summary of "Ok"; what does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Guideline/policy? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be silly. I've seen you do this before. It doesn't impress me. Is it so hard to answer some reasonable questions? This is a collaborative project, and that means cooperating with other users if they ask you something.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: When? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You created this account about four months ago. Your first edit was to create a blank userpage. Your next edits had wikilinks to policies and guidelines in the edit summaries. You were not a new user. Were you this difficult with your previous accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: you came to my userpage and deleted content. Is there a guideline or policy as to why you did that? Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toe walking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilateral. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources ?

What are you talking about ? You mean the official records from Universities and US censuses (sic) ? Hell why are you talking about medical things, I've never posted anything about medicine, period. What articles are you talking about ? Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Please include sources when adding content to Wikipedia" ? I AM. What are you even talking about ? Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ummunmutamnag: oops, I added the wrong template. You need to add sources to everything you post on WP. I noticed that you included a lot of information that is not sourced. That's why I let you know on your talk page. And calm down, my gosh! The article you created, Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, doesn't include sources for the most important portion of the article. WP:BLP articles need to have everything sourced. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by " the most important portion of the article." ? Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you mean a link to him having written "The Prince of Gravas" beyond the same name, middle initial and titles earned through the University of Pennsylvania, then all the biographical information on him is confirmed in two separate editions of class records from The University of Pennsylvania available on the Internet Archive. But additionaly I have now linked that information together with another document from the University, 1917's "General Alumni Catalogue Of The University Of Pennsylvania", where it confirms Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, who graduated in 1893, is also the writer of "The Prince of Gravas". Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Ummunmutamnag: can't believe I really have to spell this out for you: When he was born, where he was born, where was he educated, what degree did he receive, what did he do for a living? There are sentences in the lead that are unsourced that need sources. :/ --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. That information is all in "The Class of '93, The University of Pennsylvania, Record to 1930", the very first refference I put in there. I even linked to the specific page. Edit: The Mount Vernon location comes from the excerpt of the 1940 US census, the 2nd refference in the list. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]