User talk:GrnpcmstMark

July 2020

Your recent editing history at Legend of the Rainbow Warriors 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. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Greenpeacemst reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Greenpeacemst. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Legend of the Rainbow Warriors, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I'm also going to repeat here some of what I said on Doug's talk page: I realize you feel strongly about the misinformation and non-WP:RS sites you are trying to add, as do many who have a conflict of interest. But your attachment to this fakelore is keeping you from doing unbiased research, and is instead leading you to simply do a POV push. I realize you may have long believed that this fakelore is true, but it is not. You will need to get used to the idea that non-Natives have been spreading misinformation about this for a very long time, but that it is still misinformation. None of the sources you have suggested are even remotely appropriate for Wikipedia, and it's probably your COI that is keeping you from realizing this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now a "COI" is being alleged?! And being used to suspend my editing?! Two points: First, I put an article from one site to my blogger site at an early stage of my editing efforts and what I have been informed constitutes an "edit war." Second, I have a u-name of "Greenpeace...," which reflects my interest and concern about the subject, but no financial or even consumer membership conflicts. Beyond that, I have a degree in Anthro and interest in the subject. Your peremptory assertion that ultimately treats some low quality scholarship sources in favor not just of id´ing a Christian evangelical angle, but an outright unsubstantiated treatment of plausible Native Am material as invalid is fallacious. My interest is most of all scholarly as someone with a bachelors in Anthropology and a masters in Intl Rel, to be clear.

I just made another effort and turned up a source that adds actual detailed scholarly perspective with some solid grounding about specifically Hopi modernization and context in relation to Christianity and secular culture, A. Geertz´s 1994 The Invention of Prophecy. A skimming got me to page 109 at which an ongoing conflict between "Traditionalists" and the Tribal Council involves accusations by the Tr.´s against the TC as influenced by missionaries. The anthropologist author Geertz observes that both had actually been influenced. Thus, non-Native Am influences are acknowledged on two Native Am parties and their angles, but the Native Am role is acknowledged. Pg 110 conveys "Trad" youths inspired by prophecies with a modern orientation. Thus, the term "fakelore" would be more realistically contextualized by at least allowing for the possibility of legitimate Native Am content and not invalidating that possibility outright. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=010n4juXQRcC&pg=PA70&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Peter Nabokov´s 1978/99 Native American Testimony has an example on pg 470 of an apparent traditional Apache prophecy of a similar theme as the Rainbow Warrior.

That "fakelore" has been asserted without regard for possible genuine content reflects the limited depth of source references and appears unsound. Thankfully, Geertz´s work is sufficiently available and provides a touch of balance.Greenpeacemst (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why you haven't asked to be unblocked. You weren't blocked for COI, we only block for that if a COI editor edits in violation of their COI, which depends on the COI. You were blocked because User:Orangemike thought your username meant you represent a company. I wasn't convinced and was going to post to his page, but he's now notified. I think the mst may confused, but is that the Brazilian group? Doug Weller talk 12:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, just looked at your link and it's google.br, so it must be. I'll unblock if you clarify that in your unblock request. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:NOR. Sources need to mention at least "Rainbow"(s). Otherwise it's your interpretation. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that clarification on the block.

Now, let´s see how this works. You guys sure think everybody is just eager and undistracted to read walls of text and learn all your procedures in a snap like you decade-long vets, huh? Sorry, I have prioritized a number of things, like the 2005 UNEP-World Bank-NGO Millenium Ecosystem Assessment and the problem of acknowledging appropriate knowledge domains. Now, as for the u-name issue, well, how about you guys please changing it to "GrnpcmstMark," so that my registered edits get linked?

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GrnpcmstMark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

GrnpcmstMark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Because Greenpeacemst has caused confusion here Greenpeacemst (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've renamed and unblocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for Brazil´s MST, congrats on your recognition. I moved to that country actually and am quite confident that they aren´t confused, nor bothered by non-fraudulent advertising by a friendly high integrity party. As for my "clarifying my link as google.br", again, I am merely a US ex-pat, dual cit resident who likes the mst, and likes giving them a kind of free ad, as I do with Greenpeace in many u-names.

As for "sources on the Leg of Rainbow Warrior," I repeat and invoke scholarly standards and breadth, the existing source of M. Niman is no apparent primary academic source on the full nature, which would require a clear empirical revelation, as if "(a Hopi source or V. Brown) admitted there is no genuine Hopi-Native Am content in the LRW. It is a totally fictitious creation." Lacking that, the current LRW page assertion that "the LRW is nothing but fiction and evangelical Christian at that" is YOUR FALLACIOUS AND SKEWED interpretation that is not justified by "M. Niman and Playing Indian author X say evangelical Christians are involved, or, 'say it´s totally made up.'"

Besides Geertz, I´m happy to have come up with P. Nabokov´s 1978/99 Native American Testimony at https://archive.org/details/nativeamericante0000unse . An Apache prophecy on pg 470, as I began to mention, specifically refers to a future when "Natives become whites and whites become Natives." Both of my two sources have Comparative empirical significance, and don´t need to actually mention "Rainbow" to justify the differentiation of "evangelical cooptation and embellishment" from "possible or probable genuine Native Am content." Asserting your favorite interpretation of very unspecific levels of detail, and invalidating a scholarly framework, is not sound. Just because "Santa Claus" has been coopted by commercial and secular users doesn´t mean that St. Nicholas of (X) didn´t exist. He did, even if his name wasn´t "Santa Claus" because that name comes from the Dutch "Sinter Klaas." Meanwhile, "Santa Claus" is "Father Christmas" in the UK, "Weihnachtsmann" in German, and "Papai Noel" in Portuguese.

If you want to assert "fakelore" ONLY!, even that requires actual study, as my Santa Claus example already captures. Your tactic of trying to filter by "Rainbow," allege that "someone else" is interpreting, "not" you and your editor-supporters who"are following wiki procedures," are using unscholarly standards for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. You can run the show in this case all you want. I went to Harvard and NYU, have done good and lived with integrity, and now am an independent scholar who swims around the Titanic. Better look in the mirror, and reading the Santa Claus page wouldn´t hurt. Greenpeacemst (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. It also appears that your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization, person or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest. You may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets.

While user names that are the names of organizations are not permitted, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Foundation", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text

{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names.

Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your re-name or with you being unblocked; but you still don't seem to understand that "giving them a kind of free ad, as I do with Greenpeace in many u-names" is exactly what we forbid people from doing, for exactly the reason that you wanted to do it. Wikipedia does not exist and will not be exploited to support your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. As it happens, I support Greenpeace's causes, but have been nauseated by the credulity of well-meaning white folks in the area of fakelore and New Age woo-woo. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note about the connection between the name "Greenpeace" and the "Rainbow Warriors" articles in this user's edit history, and why I added the COI notice. As I mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard, the "Legend of the Rainbow Warriors" is central to the identity of the Greenpeace group. The founders were involved in spreading the fakelore, they named their Rainbow Warrior#Ships after the legend, they often call themselves, "Rainbow Warriors", and use the story to inspire their activists. The topics/names are intertwined, and this user has edited in a way that shows intense attachment to maintaining the Greenpeace beliefs about this legend as the public face of the story, resulting in edit-warring to POV push. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, editor CV´s perception of one source of my interest fails to address the substantive issues, or account for my ability to use the internet alone to identify actual scholarly sources and selections that support the nuanced issue I raise and the points I am making. Thus, ed CV´s characterization of me, and total lack of substantive content and research to address ed CV´s own rather skewed and inflexible understanding, suggests ed CV is avoiding substance and trying to use labels as diversionary measures and to throw ed CV´s "OS authority" around, aka abusive scapegoating. Ed CV thinks I´m not making substantive points? Ed CV´s ideological anti-anthropology crusade will make fine fuel in helping me refer to wikip´s quality control failings. Open Source, indeed. Geertz and Nabokov/Apache back at ya, ed CV. GrnpcmstMark (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:GrnpcmstMark. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]