User talk:City of Silver/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Levin

Greetings.

In response to your message posted below, please provide your evidence that my amendment to a link to Mark Levin was "less than neutral," so that I may not make the same mistake moving forward.

Thank you in advance for your time.

BlackR1BlackR1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CityOfSilver. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mark Levin seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CityOfSilver 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mark Levin, you may be blocked from editing. CityOfSilver 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackR1: First, you added text about how Roger Stone "attacked and smeared" Levin. That text came right before a citation to a Fox News article, and that proximity means anyone looking to verify your addition should read that article. But it doesn't even mention Stone, let alone anything about attacks and smears coming down on Levin. So your use of "smeared" didn't come from there. Its use is completely unjustified and since you didn't source it, it's possible you added unlawful libel to this website. And while I know Stone is never going to sue Wikipedia because of minor edits like that, surely you can see that this doesn't matter: Wikipedia can't allow even a hint of libel anywhere ever.
I didn't understand your next edit. You didn't explain it. Here's the relevant text:
"...Levin alleged, without evidence, that the Obama administration had used 'police state' surveillance tactics against the Donald Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election."
You removed the text "without evidence." The source, which you can find between the words "evidence" and "that," is an Associated Press article that was published in the Chicago Tribune. That article says, and I quote:
"Radio host Mark Levin voiced without evidence the idea that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower."
I read that article three different times to make sure it wasn't an editorial or something. It's not. It's a plain, dry news article. Why did you remove those two words, which are letter-for-letter verbatim from the AP?
Your next edit was you undoing my first edit with no explanation. I have no issue with getting reverted, especially since I make mistakes all the time. But unless I lose my mind and go on a vandalism spree, I will never tolerate being undone with no explanation, which you should put in the edit summary box below the big page editing window.
I think you're a conservative, a Mark Levin fan, or both. If so, that's perfectly fine. I also think you're editing Wikipedia from that mindset. That's also 100% fine; you can probably tell by reading that article that plenty of Levin's listeners have worked on it. I apologize if this seems judgmental or harsh but on my honor, it's the truth: I think the problem is that it isn't important to you that your edits comply with policy. That's absolutely not fine. There are a few policies I could cite here but the most obvious one is WP:NPOV. You are required to try to maintain fairness, even if in a lot of cases, it'll probably never truly happen. (In case that's not enough alphabet soup, you can also check WP:RS and WP:OR.) And if I'm right about your politics, I'll reiterate that we badly want people who believe the things you believe to edit here. CityOfSilver 02:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

David Ramsey page

This user continues to revert David Ramsey page. He does not look at the page before reverting. I don't know what is your problem. 70.79.40.30 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain your issue with the edit. CityOfSilver 18:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I only did a small edit to the page but you keep reverting it back. Can I ask you why you keep doing that? 70.79.40.30 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion thread at Talk:David Ramsey. Please feel free to continue talking about it there. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You are a sock of User:Divide223 and so, per WP:3RRNO, your edits will be reverted. Plus, you have been personally attacking users. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure can. Your first revert that I saw had an accusation in its summary that User:Callmemirela, a three-year veteran here, is a "troll." That was you asking to be reverted. (You've also called that person's work "vandalism.") Your next revert was to call me a "dumbass." That was you again asking to be reverted. If you can't figure out how to edit here without behaving like that, I'm going to think you're here to do harm.
Are you a sockpuppet of User:Speedy135? CityOfSilver 19:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Update to Donnie Demers

Hi Again, We have spent the better half of two hours cleaning up the Wikipedia page for Donnie Demers. We encourage you to take a look at the changes and please let us know how we can best follow the rules of the Wikipedia website. It is our intent to adhere to the rules, as well as to work with you, not against you, so that we can correct the issues that are questionable. Thanks, John Musicalwheels (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalwheels (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Honestly, there are more rules here than the US Government. One seems to need a degree to figure them all out. lol. I'll definitely take your advance and make that change to the name. On the other topics, the word "sufferer" is what is particularly offensive. The fact that he has Muscular Dystrophy IN NO WAY implies that he is suffering. That was my point. Also, just to refer to the CUTTING of the other content, his other International releases with various recording artists are worthy of encyclopedic noting. I completely agree with you though, I'm sure people do not appreciate having their work edited, but my intention is to procure an accurate representation, on par with every other Wikipedia inclusion. All of that said, did you still not agree with the most condensed and update entry? Musicalwheels (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@OrrisonStreet: One of these days, I'm going to try to find the ancient disputes that caused them to write all these enormous policies. As obnoxious as they are, the rules have prevented countless bloodbaths.
That said, there are issues that I believe need to be addressed. I don't have time right now but in a little while, I can go through the text and try to react to everything, paragraph-by-paragraph. In the meantime, you really ought to consider restricting yourself to talk pages. WP:COI is okay with you doing very minor edits to Demers's article but nothing substantial. If they believe a user with a conflict of interest isn't following the rules, they won't be happy about it. CityOfSilver 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Cameron Diaz

Hi, just letting you know that I was looking at the wrong diff when I reverted a good edit earlier. Sorry about that! XboxGamer22408talk to me 18:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@XboxGamer22408: That idiot is bombing that page so I have no issue with you getting lost in a diff onslaught. My complaint was that saw that you and User:Red Jay had edited but they'd gotten snagged by pending changes. Why did that happen? CityOfSilver 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know why what would have happened. I am a pending changes reviewer if that matters. XboxGamer22408talk to me 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@XboxGamer22408: So it's even crazier that it would happen to you. I'm going to try to find some messageboard where I can whine about this. CityOfSilver 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Update

Hi again, I have reviewed and applied your recommendations to most of the article. Is this the appropriate place for us to discuss that? I'm a little confused as to where I am to reply. That said, I appreciate the time that you've put into helping me clean this article up. I intend to complete it by tomorrow, with replies to all of your recommendations and edits. All of the songs listed in the latter part of the article have reached #1 on the music charts. The latest one is currently at #1. These are significant milestones to the Demers article, especially since his songs have usually topped the digital positioning of those albums. It's hard to find the references since those positions change daily. In the case of Haddad, that album was certified Platinum twice, and it could be argued that any one of the songwriters on that album propelled that position, whether the song was "released" or not. The music industry is evolving almost daily and keeping track of these ongoing changes can be grueling unless the profile is equivalent to an artist such as Pink or Ed Sheeran. Nevertheless, my intent is to try to get these proofs of importance so that they can be cited in the article. I'll pick this up tomorrow when I get back to work. Thanks again for your help. OrrisonStreet (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrrisonStreet (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

On Mark Levin's article.

Excuse me, but I did not bark orders on editing! I specifically said just to keep it at the status quo that User:Localemediamonitor had it. I pleaded for a consensus on the talk page of the article. This is the fifth time this has happened. Please let us not fight over this. All I and others would like would be a neutral consensus on what should be put in the article. That's all. I read WP:OWN and I'm not out of line on this. Please let us be civil when it comes to this. Kirby (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Keeby101: If you read the first sentence in your edit summary, you might see a bit of terminology that makes me think you're declaring yourself the arbiter of fairness on there. I would strongly dispute this since your use of the impossibly loaded, ultrapartisan term "liberal bias" indicates your presentation of yourself as nothing but a consensus seeker isn't wholly fair. And unless I counted wrong, your next revert violates 3RR. The discussion is not going to stop being really contentious so if your approach involves continuing to edit while doing battle with your (apparent) political opponents, don't be surprised when things go haywire. CityOfSilver 03:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
CityOfSilver With all due respect, you did count wrong. I only reverted the article twice. I couldn't do a third revert. The 3RR states that 3 reverts is the maximum unless you have rollback rights. Now, I might've gone off on a tangent and shouted out liberal bias, but in all fairness, the article needs improvement. There might not be a liberal bias per say, but I do believe that the article does need some fixing.
Now, again, I on the talk page of the article did say that I went a bit overboard and vented out frustration, which I apologized for. But none of the less, Boneada's edit I just don't see as covering all of what went down. I put in sources, excluding facebook in the last edit that did have both sides of the story. User:Localemediamonitor added more to it and he had more content that told more of what Levin had done as did I. The section of that article is short and it doesn't cover all that was said. I do retract my previous statements such as "Liberal Bias", but I do believe that the article needs some work.
So far, I have only reverted the article twice. So my next revert will be the last that I can do. If I go beyond that, then yes I will be in violation of 3RR, but so far that has not happened yet. Now, if possible, please may we all discuss what to put in that section of the article and what not to put in there? Reach a consensus among the editors? That's all that I ask at this point.
Regards. Kirby (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kirby101: "I couldn't do a third revert. The 3RR states that 3 reverts is the maximum unless you have rollback rights." The clear error here proves you've never read WP:3RR or that you don't understand it. 3RR does not say 3 reverts is the maximum.
You've admitted several times that you knew you shouldn't edit like that, and your explanation for knowingly violating policy like this is that you're annoyed at others' treatment of you. If you can't control your temper, you badly need to avoid editing partisan, contentious articles like Levin's. CityOfSilver 15:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Canton High School (Massachusetts)

I am a school librarian at Canton High School collaborating with a Journalism class on adding and improving our Wikipedia page. You recently reverted back to an older version. Why?

Telisj (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Telisj: In the summary for the edit I did that removed everything, I expressed concern that most of the users who had edited that page this year might have conflicts of interest. Another concern I have is that much of the text that was added isn't great in light of our policy regarding promoting people, places, things, etc. CityOfSilver 17:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Telisj: Please have a look at our FAQ/guide for how to learn and edit Wikipedia as part of a school assignment. CityOfSilver 18:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


I work with Telisj here at Canton High School. Can you please specify which details of our earlier edits violated conflict of interest policy? I understand that our usernames suggest a potential conflict, though we're trying to avoid bias, or using any information that carries bias. I have also looked at the school assignment page. We will work on creating course and assignment pages, but can we draft edits that adhere to the Wikipedia policies in the meantime? Murphychs (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Murphychs: Let's say, hypothetically, the article needed someone to add something negative, like a scandal involving a teacher or a coach. Can you imagine a student whose username gives away their real-life identity adding something like that as part of an assignment? Can you imagine a teacher who gave a Wikipedia assignment tolerating something they might perceive as an attack on a co-worker or the school? The edits so far aren't particularly controversial. But when there's a conflict of interest, there's always going to be a tendency towards avoiding painful yet necessary stuff.
From the relevant policy page, "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead." That you're editing is itself not good, even if you're not adding anything blatantly promotional or clearly inappropriate. And for that matter, your status as a conflicted editor might actually be beneficial. Editors with insider knowledge might be able to provide insight and information that others might not know. That's why, instead of completely avoiding those pages, your best bet is to request edits at the talk page and let someone without a conflict make a decision on what to do next. CityOfSilver 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I understand; we will start all edits on the Canton High School TALK page. I just suggested an edit. Can you double-check to see that I'm avoiding COI and citing correctly? Murphychs (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Murphychs: I have no issue with your messages there. The edit request regarding the superintendent has been fulfilled per the source you suggested. CityOfSilver 15:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

RFPP requests

Regarding this edit summary [1] I can't think of any reason you'd get into trouble for doing it that way, the effect is the same regardless. However, just so you know, if you turn on WP:TWINKLE it makes all reporting to RFPP, AIV, etc much simpler as you just fill in the blanks and it makes the request for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Really? Me? Learn a new thing? Are you sure? I mean, I'll try it but when I accidentally delete Wikipedia, it'll be your fault. CityOfSilver 20:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a really great tool in that it simplifies all sorts of things, so you'll actually need to know less, you just have to remember to use it instead of manually making reports or leaving talk page notices. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I'll get started on it in a while. Thank you for the idea. CityOfSilver 20:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Telugu language

Hey this is Ankinjago I added reliable sources for Guyana and Telugu. So I just wanted to ask if I could add it again. Ankinjago (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ankinjago: Does either one of the first two sources confirm that there are Telugu speakers in Guyana? I can't find where either of these sources say that. We can't use the source you added regarding Telugu speakers in Mauritius because it's a WordPress blog, and thus not in line with WP:UGC. CityOfSilver 17:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

On the fifth paragraph it says that people who were Tamil Hindi and Telugu came to Guyana and settled. Ankinjago (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I put another source for the Mauritius one. Ankinjago (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Black Comedy

So "King of Comedy", "Fargo", "After Hours",and "American Psycho" can't be mentioned in this page, but some fucking "Birdman" can ??? Are you kidding me????

If the writing in your addition weren't so bad, I might consider it. This has been explained to you over and over but instead of giving a damn, you just keep violating policy. CityOfSilver 19:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Twitter

I've seen Twitter used a source on Wikipedia before. Apparently you haven't. So don't tell me to read up on "sourcing". If had another source I'd add it. 184.149.23.112 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What identity did you use when we last interacted? CityOfSilver 13:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:City_of_Silver/Archive_7&oldid=1181010543"