User talk:Bo Gardiner 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Bo Gardiner 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- Irn (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do


When you do translations or add an article that has a corresponding article in another WP, remember to add the link to the other versions in the Language section of the left hand sidebar. It's only necessary to add one, the system does the others. And even more important, it is absolutely necessary for you to say on the talk page and preferably also in the edit summary what you translated it from. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jill Stein. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr Hello... I've had two of my edits undone on that page, each of which I've reverted once. The first was by someone who was banned for edit warring, so I didn't think it possible or advisable to discuss it with the person. The second was a week later, today, was supported by 2 other users there as being sound, and I included a lengthy explanation by me on the talk page. I thought I was scrupulously following rules, which I very much want to do. Please tell me what I should have done differently. Thanks.Bo Gardiner 18:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You could have used a concise post to the talk page seeking more input, with no revert in the article. Looking at the talk page I see one editor partially agreeing with having some sort of section, lots of disagreement, and no support for the specific text. In a contentious article (it's under an extra-restrictive WP:1RR sanction), you should be able to point to an unambiguous consensus on the talk page before repeating an edit. More generally, your edit has the "feel" that you started with a conclusion and then worked backwards with tweets and such to support the position. Polemic statements in Wikipedia's voice such as "Stein's escalating rhetoric against Clinton culminated in the last few weeks..." are never going to be ok in any article. This is also an example of your cherry picking, because the article you used to support that sentence also quotes Stein calling Trump a "fascist" and calling Clinton the "lesser evil" - statements that do not support your premise and were excluded from your edit. That same paragraph also juxtaposes a tweet from 3 1/2 weeks earlier in violation of WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm clearly trying to learn so I can be a helpful contributor and you're being incredibly adversarial. This is not the way to encourage editors here.

It's plain wrong to say there is "no support for the specific text," when there were these comments to the person who deleted my contribution:

While it's probably undue to have such a long section on the issue, it's not a BLP violation to include the well-sourced public personal political opinions of a public politician. It's a BLP problem to say Steven is a schmuck., but it's not a BLP violation, on an article about Jane, who's running for office against Steven, that In 2016 Jane said to the Washington Post, "Steven is a schmuck." TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not wikt:innuendo. It's not even figurative language, and is a direct quote. If you don't like the title, or the presentation, or if you would like to make an argument from another policy which applies, like WP:UNDUE, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't edit war over this citing BLP, because I'm informing you now that it isn't. If you disagree, I would suggest you ask for outside input at WP:BLPN before you continue to revert. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Those quotes are most certainly supportive.

Your point:

the article you used to support that sentence also quotes Stein calling Trump a "fascist" and calling Clinton the "lesser evil"

She criticizes Trump often, just as Nader criticized Bush often. Nowhere do I say differently, of course they criticize the GOP; they want voters to vote for them, not the GOP. You've misunderstood her reference to "lesser evil." The quote you're referring to is "She added, 'there is no exit strategy if you buy into the lesser evil.' Stein is decidedly not calling Clinton the lesser evil there: she is saying don't buy into the theory she repeatedly calls "lesser evilism" in many of her stump speeches. My quotes are not simply her criticisms of Clinton; if they were, you'd be right it would be cherrypicking. But these quotes are something different: they are all instances I know of where there's a clear comparison of Clinton with Trump. In every instance the comparison paints Trump as less undesirable. You will not find any comparison in the reverse direction, thus there is no cherrypicking.

Your point:

That same paragraph also juxtaposes a tweet from 3 1/2 weeks earlier in violation of WP:SYN.

I don't understand... I introduce the two quotes as from "the last few weeks" of the campaign, and they are. Do you mean they need to be in chrono order?

I can certainly shorten and rename the section, remove anything that smacks of editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Gardiner 1 (talkcontribs)

No, your quotes from @TimothyJosephWood: are support for some sort of section and disagreement about which policies your proposed edit violates. I don't particularly disagree with him; WP:BLP wasn't my main concern with the section either. In general, I suggest you move away from analyzing quotes and instead use secondary sources as the backbone of content. Another editor has proposed a paragraph that appears more in line with WP:DUE; a reasonable next step would be to share your thoughts on that edit on the article talk page. Out of curiosity, which part of my responses here did you find adversarial? VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

New Wikiproject![edit]

Hello, Bo Gardiner 1! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)