User talk:Tutelary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Ging287)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey. Welcome to my talk page. It's a place where you can leave me messages. Please do not leave templates unless it is absolutely necessary. See also the essay WP:TEMPLAR. I am a lady, so please do use female pronouns, but I won't fault you for not doing so accidentally. (I can be a bit masculine sometimes!) But anywho, don't hesitate to give me some critiques, invoke some discussion, or anything like it! Thanks.

Changes to "Democratic Socialism"[edit]

Do you work for wikipedia? There's a reason that was changed, I am a professional historian and political scientist, and, as such, I often find pages about those things that are biased and outright wrong. The page on Democratic Socialism was such a thing, it was biased, and clearly written by someone with an agenda. Someone had written in (basically) that there was a "definition" of Democratic Socialism, when different socialist groups using that term have radically different agendas, between them, therefore, there is no encyclopedic definition of democratic socialism. I'm not sure worrying about "minor changes" is the best use of yours or wikipedia's time. Wikipedia is written by people who are not professionals anyway, and as a professional (at least on history and political science), I often have to change things, minor or major, that are *wildly* inaccurate. Isn't that the nature of wikipedia? If these pages were written by myself or other professionals, they would always be unbiased and for the most part correct, but they're not. So why would you or wikipedia be concerned about correcting "minor changes"? I do my best to make sure the pages are as accurate as possible, and I correct errors when I see them, but wikipedia is written by people who, in the end, have no business writing about these things anyway -- that's its nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanf222 (talkcontribs) 23:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bryanf222:, I would like to express my apologies for what you have experienced on Wikipedia and the way that you experienced it. The manner of WP:RS, WP:NOR are foreign to most users as they make their own WP:BOLD edits and it's particularly inefficient the way that most individuals are exposed to these policies--via edit summaries, on their own talk page, or even templated. Now that I've sincerely apologized for that, I'd like to say that experts on Wikipedia aren't exactly given a hearty welcome. They are in heavy need in certain aspects of Wikipedia, particularly ones in science in the more complicated like neuroscience. Their careful eye, attention to detail would very much be appreciated. The conflict in this is that certain Wikipedia policies forbid introducing their own personal research into the article space. When I reverted your edit via WP:HUGGLE, I saw that you removed a large amount of information sourced to sources and instead concluded your own research into the article, which is a violation of WP:NOR. So I reverted you in good faith. It's all natural for experts to be digging into the depths of their amorous knowledge and familiarity to the topic but then the Wikipedia policy kicks in when they attempt to add it to an article without a source. My personal recommendation would be this: In spite of the urge to do so, especially in the face of rejection by at least two other editors (One of them myself), find reliable sources that state your conclusion and present them on the talk page. Again, I'm sorry for all that has happened and hope you will still be contributing. I sympathize heavily. Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you substantiate your claim that his was original research? An unsourced passage is not ipso facto OR. Alakzi (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. There were no sources cited and affirmed above that it was his own internal knowledge of the subject. The edit itself didn't have any sourcing. And I'm probably the last person to really care about Democratic socialism, I only cared about the massive amount of stuff (that was sourced) being removed and addition of a paragraph that wasn't. Tutelary (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that, apart from deleting a whole bunch of stuff, he made two other minor alterations:
  • he changed "democratic principles" to "democracy" in the opening graph;
  • and removed ". . . or semi-planned economy." from the very last paragraph of the lede, which did not previously have any sources, either.
Therefore, the assertion that he inserted OR appears to be without merit. Alakzi (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You are correct about the WP:NOR part. However, the removal of well sourced content can't be justified. Within the simple diff, I hadn't seen that, I had to do a byte by byte analysis via an external tool to see that. Oh and thanks for catching me on that--I can admit to mistakes. Tutelary (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I agree that the removal of three whole paragraphs should've been discussed. Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to report all of you, especially you "Tutelary," you accused me of doing several things that I did not do, plus you said "It's all natural for experts to be digging into the depths of their amorous knowledge," are you aware that amourous, the word that you used as harassment means: "inclined or disposed to love, especially sexual love" so now not only are you accusing me of doing things I did not do, but now you're sexually harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My intention was absolutely not sexual harassment. I meant that particularly sentence as meaning that experts like to dig into their own internal knowledge that they are heavily familiar with for a given topic area. I meant that particular word as a synonym for passionate, which I assumed you are in your topic area, and first thought it meant something like like 'deep passion' or something like that rather than something sexual. Obviously Google disagrees with me and I've crossed it out and again, apologies. If you absolutely want to take this to a noticeboard, you can take it to WP:ANI or WP:AN but given I've had my fair share of noticeboard complaints and responding to them, I wouldn't take this particular incident as being indicative or worthy of a noticeboard. You can certainly make an argument on the talk page on why those paragraphs on Democratic socialism should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Characters[edit]

So, this may be a personal gripe, but I feel that FF characters should be confined to the FF wiki. The whole point of that wiki is to provide information on the characters and such related to the FF games. I believe articles related to FF should be removed. That's just my personal opinion. Casual Gaming (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Casual Gaming

@Casual Gaming:, I'm not exactly sure what page you are talking about. If it's my vandalism patrolling on Huggle, I deemed your edit to be vandalism. However, looking at your contributions, you have never contributed to a Final Fantasy article led alone character. If I've made a mistake, please let me know on which page and I'll rectify it. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Vuevent has a new comment[edit]

I've responded to your comment on my AfC (apologies for any errors in formatting), which can be viewed at Draft:Vuevent. Thanks! Jderocher (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You might have a look here[edit]

…at a bloke in trouble… [1]. (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)