User talk:Doady

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Doady! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! A8 UDI 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuties and Netflix

Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable Sources for content. The Hill, Fox News, The Daily mail, and NY Post are not reliable sources. Anything they say is thus irrelevant. We do not write articles, our sources write the articles. If it's not reported on by reliable sources then it doesn't exist. Some of the text you've added to the Netflix article is completely unsourced and appear to be your own personal point of view and original research as well as WP:SYNTH. You are allowed to have any opinion you want, but on Wikipedia it must be sourced to reliable secondary sources.

For example:

and "a growing — and bipartisan — list of Washington lawmakers"

The characterization of this is editorializing from unreliable sources and quoting the NY Post. We have Republicans and a single democrat, Tulsi Gabbard (who is set to leave office and isn't on good terms with the party anyways). Say this is "bipartisan" is at best a subjective POV at best. Instead simply stick to the facts and list the politicians and what they have said. Also, Ted Cruz said he's going to send a letter. That is a fact that he said that. We have no idea if any letter has been sent, or if there's any actual investigation.

After calls to completely remove the film, Netflix gave the film a maturity rating of TV-MA/R18 to reflect its sexual nature, meaning it is not available for children, and the recommended audience age listed is now 18+.

This is factually incorrect I believe the film always had that rating. I've heard it's actually relating to scenes of the family not any of the dancing. Also you have no source, the link goes to Netflix's site in general about their ratings system. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you're also making edits to Criticism of Netflix as well. Here you say the source is the film and that you don't need third party sources. However, everything you added is still your own personally original research and analysis. See WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:RS. To call something "sexual", or "adult-dance routine" or "simulated sex acts" is your own personal opinion and analysis. It may seem "obvious" to you that this is the case, but it may not be to others. You can dislike or rail against the film but WP:NOTHERE. That is not what Wikipedia is about.

Also @HaeB: made a partial revert to Netflix, but it still contains the unsourced statement that Netflix rated the film because of the sexual content and in response to the controversy. Until there is a source that statement needs to be removed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9: my edits were added incrementally and with clear edit summaries. If you had any problem with any of them, you should have addressed them individually with clear justification.

Your statement regarding source reliability is factually incorrect per WP:Reliable Sources. As you made bulk revisions to the page, it is unclear which of your changes were supposedly a result of your error regarding the actual reliability status of the sources you mentioned, and which were attributed to other reasoning. In any case, The Hill and Fox News are both listed as Generally Reliable. The New York Post is listed as No Consensus. As I stated, I retained the Daily Mail source as the reporting was consistent. Discuss removing that single source if you want, but it is disruptive to remove an entire set of independently added and clearly described edits in bulk with no clear indication of what removals apply to what limited reasoning you provide.

The film itself is the source for the content information, and it is indisputable as clips from the film are widely available since the film's release. The dance routine is adult by any standard, does have simulated sex acts by any standard, and is sexual by any standard. The filmmakers themselves agree on this point. They state that this is the entire point of the movie, to decry the hypersexualization of children. The entire reason for the controversy is that they intentionally used real 11-year-old girls to act out and present this adult content. Describing the content of the film is not "railing" against the film.

Your example about the bipartisan list is refuted by the fact that the New York Post is not listed as unreliable, combined with the fact that you are clearly stating your own opinion over whether you personally consider Rep. Gabbard to be a Democrat or not. Also, Ted Cruz did send the letter to the Attorney General of the United States. It was dated September 11, 2020, and it was directly linked to in the New York Post article that you removed.

You complained that you didn't know what TV-MA meant in one of your several bulk reversions, so I provided a source for Netflix's maturity rating scheme. It is not clear how what you may have "heard" about Netflix's reasoning for maturity ratings on this film is relevant. In any case, I did not contribute that paragraph, I only updated the recommended age provided by Netflix. Doady (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is where discussions of reliability take place. The consensus is that these are not reliable sources and most of them are tabloids. Your edits rests on a foundation of low quality tabloid sources. And it is especially important to rely on high quality sources for any topic that is controversial.

I stated that I heard some things about the rating, but I am not sure and I don't have a source, and for that reason I didn't add anything about the rating to any articles. You have zero sources discussing why the film was rated the way it is, and you're making assumptions as to why it is. You're speculating based on the rating and netflix's ratings guides why the film is rated the way it is. That is adding your personal analysis. I am adhering to wikipedia policies you are not. Wikipedia is not to be the place where you add your own opinions and viewpoints.

The film itself is the source for the content information,

That's not how things work. We have a source, and then you disagree with that source and place your own opinion based on your own research of the film. That's original research. See WP:OR. It doesn't matter how obvious you think it is. We need a source even for whether the sky is blue or not. It doesn't matter if it's right or not. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is to be a summary of secondary scholarly sources, not our own research.

The point about bipartisanship is that it's 100% NYPost opinion that you've added to the article, and in fact quoted entirely. We can't take editorializing, especially from non-reliable sources, at face value like that. We need to write articles that are neutral. See WP:N. Whether something is "bipartisan" or not is somewhat subjective, and it's pretty questionable to say that a lot of Republicans plus a single democrat who has a history of siding with Republicans and appears on Fox news means that it's "bipartisan". That is to imply that there is much more support for criticism of the film within the Democratic party than there is. And the quote even has "growing" which is silly since we don't have a crystal ball and have no clue if more democrats will join or not.

I would also recommend actually seeing the film rather than just relying on a few short clips. Most of those who have seen the film tend to have a positive view of the film. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9: (and @HaeB:, keeping you in the loop regarding this person you are supporting who can't seem to stop harassing me or even be honest about their mistakes):

I did not contribute the statement about the reasons behind the change to the rating. I did not edit that statement. I only updated the age that the rating designates. I don't understand why you keep trying to convince me I'm wrong about something I did not write. If you're so concerned, why don't you go through the page history and find the actual editor who added that statement and harass them about it?

Also, it appears you're saying that a film itself cannot be a source for the contents of said film. Not clear how this makes sense at all. So I can summarize a news article, but I can't summarize a film? You're claiming that every plot summary for every book and movie and videogame on Wikipedia is only there because someone is summarizing the media content from an article written by a reliable source? That is nonsense.

You're also still refusing to recognize your blatant mistake claiming your block deletion of content was related to reliable sources. WP:RSP confirms there is No Consensus regarding New York Post, and both The Hill and Fox News are both listed as Generally Reliable. Are you not checking this page at all before you harass people? I understand you may not consider them reliable. You seem to have many opinions, and you seem to be guiding your editing (and content removal) based on your own biases while hiding behind various Wikipedia rules and guidelines that you don't even seem to understand yourself.

You want to claim that only Republicans find child sexualization to be problematic. Even the New York Times disagrees. Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat. It is not up to you to make judgements about that. Unless, I suppose, you find a "Reliable Source" that will prove that she is lying in every case and is secretly not a Democrat, and you can then go and edit every single Wikipedia page that claims she is a Democrat. I'm assuming you are not doing something so ridiculous, so please stop inserting your own "personal research" into the discussion on this one single page and then harassing me about it.

Regarding your suggestion that I watch a film of 11-year-olds performing sexualized dances: No thank you. My Netflix account is now cancelled. You might enjoy such material, you might even convince yourself that you are somehow "enlightened" because by watching and supporting such a film, you are actually against the sexualizing of children because of the supposed "message" claimed by the filmmakers. Unfortunately, the film was made with real 11-year-old girls. Actual children. They were dressed up in revealing costumes and taught how to dance like strippers. They were taught to twerk. They were told to straddle each other, caress each others' buttocks, to go down on all fours and then put their fingers between their legs, to pretend to have sex with the floor, to suck their fingers while they caressed their own genitals. Children were told to do this. Then they were filmed doing all these things for a movie to be released internationally, with closeups. Again, these are children. How could they consent to such an activity, let alone even understand what they were being asked to do? How could they make any judgement at all about whether or not they wanted videos of themselves doing such acts captured on film and spread around the world, to exist for all time? This is pure child sexual exploitation, and you want me and other people to watch this and support it. You even make edits to Wikipedia pages based on this view. The filmmakers spent six months auditioning 650 girls just for the main character. What do you think they had these children do for the auditions, just read few lines? Didn't they need to find out if they were going to be able to twerk properly? That they had the right body type for the skimpy outfits they had in mind? Hundreds and hundreds of 11-year-old girls. This is truly disgusting, and it boggles the mind when people like you can ignore the experience of the real children involved and say, "Just watch the film, the message is so great."

Yes I have this opinion, but I did not add it to the article. I only added clear information from appropriate sources. You, on the other hand, bulk removed content that you admit that you personally disagree with by falsely claiming that certain sources were unreliable. Even if they were, those sources only applied to a few sentences, while you had removed paragraphs.

Please stop hiding behind lies and Wikipedia rules you aren't even following to promote your personal opinion on Wikipedia, and please stop harassing me.

Doady (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll be sure to remember your suggestion about crystal balls next time I see any article that states that anything is either increasing or decreasing. I suppose that puts a stop to the whole "Global Warming" concern, right? Nonsense. Doady (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely attempting to explain Wikipedia guidelines, which is important because that is what guides pages. But it does seem that you are not interested in following those guidelines or writing about the film in a neutral manner. That falls under WP:NOTHERE. The suggestion to actually watch the film is important because people are largely basing their views on what people have said about the film, rather that the film itself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9: You are not responding to anything I am saying.

It is unclear why your "explanations" of Wikipedia guidelines have never yet included any recognition of your false (yet condescending) claim that the New York Post, The Hill, and Fox News are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia. They are not. Again, please see WP:RSP.

Additionally, summarizing the content of a film is no more "original research" than summarizing the content of a news article. The dance scene captured in the original marketing poster image, that Netflix claimed was not appropriate, is in the film. Yes, they changed the poster, with deep apologies, but they did not change the film, and those 11-year-old girls were used to make the film.

Finally, you still refuse to even respond the main point, which is that the "message" of the movie is irrelevant if real actual children are abused in the making of the film. One doesn't need to watch the entire film to recognize this point.

Maybe this example will be simple enough for you to understand: https://babylonbee.com/news/new-netflix-movie-actually-murders-puppies-to-teach-that-murdering-puppies-is-bad

@Harizotoh9: You have lied repeatedly about reliable sources, and you removed content that wasn't even related to those sources. Please stop harassing me, and please stop editing Wikipedia pages based on your personal ideology.

Doady (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, discussion and collaboration is a central part of Wikipedia. So after edits it's useful to discuss them and the rational for them in an attempt to build consensus see WP:BRD. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Netflix#Cuties and Talk:Criticism_of_Netflix#Cuties in regards to the edits I've made there. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your recent editing history at Netflix 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. HaeB (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB:

I made multiple incremental edits with clear edit summaries. My contributions were bulk removed by @Harizotoh9: based in part on false source reliability information in the related edit summaries. As the multiple edits were bulk removed, it is not clear which removals apply to which of the limited explanations provided in the edit summaries and which apply to the incorrect source reliability information. Additional discussion perpetuating the false source reliability information was added to my talk page by Harizotoh9. You perpetuated those false claims and participated in the bulk removals yourself.

I have patiently reverted several times asking for clear justification from you and Harizotoh9 for individual changes to my various edits. Neither of you has responded, and instead you both continue to bulk revert my contributions. As I am the editor requesting some clear reasoning for the changes you and Harizotoh9 continue to make, it appears that it is you and Harizotoh9 who are violating the three-revert rule.

I ask again: please provide actual clear individual justification for specific changes and stop bulk removing individually added and unrelated contributions. Note that your "roundup" of bulk removals included other editors' contributions as well.

Thank you Doady (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: I wonder if your opinion is any different now that @Harizotoh9: has admitted that the bulk edits they were making based on disproved false claims are actually fully in line with their stated personal beliefs? Will you now add a helpful

icon to Harizotoh9's Talk page?

Doady (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, my opinion has not changed. You made more than three reverts to this article within 24 hours ([1][2][3][4], not counting additional reverts that you self-reverted) and thus were in clear violation of the WP:3RR policy. You could have been blocked for this, and probably should have been, considering that you do not appear to be interested in understanding and following this policy (and are rather making false claims about others violating them), and that you are not a newbie, your account being more than 14 years old.

It's also not clear to me what you meant by Harizotoh9'S "disproved false claims" or "false source reliability information"; editors are entitled to their personal opinion of how a reliable a source is in a given context, and the fact is that you were edit-warring (e.g. [5]) to retain sources that prior consensus has held to be unreliable, see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]