User talk:Clean Copy
- 1 Spirituality reverts
- 2 Your removal of sources
- 3 Please comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations
- 4 Please comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian)
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for June 10
- 6 Please comment on Talk:Goliath
- 7 Leads as summary of article
- 8 Please comment on Talk:Noah's Ark
- 9 Please comment on Talk:Christian ethics
- 10 Advice and Notifications
- 11 Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases
Decisions about "too long" require discussion and consensus, not high-handed alienating and unexplained admin actions. Agreed that this would have been better as a new article but there wasn't any need for hasty reversions given that the content was clearly not vandalism and of good quality.
- The admin action was against the apparent sockpuppetry, which you have explained as students working together -- I'm not sure if you realize that their actions still violated the sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) policy. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is exactly what was followed here: the bold edit was followed by a revert. The next step is to discuss (not to edit war, as both you and the second student have been doing). Clean Copytalk 23:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Your removal of sources
Take a look at this edit of yours. By doing this, you have removed the actual references, because in the Harvard system of abbreviated citations there must be anchors to which abbreviated references like "Long (2003)", etc. link to. By removing the full references to the sources, you effectively removed the references themselves.
If this was a singular edit like this, then please just take this info into account when you are contemplating making similar edits in the future. If this, on the other hand, was a part of your systematic effort to clean multiple articles, I would suggest you go back, review your edit history, and rectify this in other affected articles as well. cherkash (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ouch! I did not realize what they were. Thank you. Fortunately, this was a one-off edit, and thanks to your timely warning, will not recur. Clean Copytalk 14:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Éric-Emmanuel Schmitt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Please comment on Talk:Goliath
Leads as summary of article
Your edit to Al Jolson's lead, where you wrote, "that in retrospect has been harshly critiqued as implicitly racist," is not a fact covered in the article itself. If you would like to make that a topic, you should support it with details before offering your own opinion, especially in a bio's lead. In the meantime, the statement should be removed as being OR. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Light show:There is already a quote criticizing Jolson's use of blackface in the section of the article devoted to this theme that I assumed was sufficient to back this up, but I have added a specific citation to the article from which this quote was drawn, which has substantial critique. It is certainly not OR, in any case, as it is an opinion widely articulated, not my own particularly. Clean Copytalk 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for citing. But note that adding that it "has been harshly critiqued as implicitly racist," is still an opinion. Nor does claiming that it is "an opinion widely articulated" clarify the point, since an opinion by some modern writers does not make it a "harsh critique."
- It also adds a bit of possible confusion for readers, since most of the paragraph and the supporting material in the body, imply the exact opposite of your concluding addition, calling him a racist. And adding opinions about what might be considered racist by today's standards, when a 100 years ago as a common theatrical convention, blackface was considered quite different and mostly innocent, only adds more confusion. The implied result, IMO, is that calling him a "racist" as the final word in the lead, even without the cite, seems contradictory and strikingly out of place. --Light show (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Somewhat better, yet because "racism" is such a hot-button word, its use needs careful discretion in someone's bio, especially in the lead. Here, the 12,000-word article has one short mention implying "racism" by today's standards, commentary which you yourself added. So pointing out a backward-looking opinion about yesterday's style still seems out of place. We don't even label rap music as racist.
- But the addition has the same effect, IMO, of quoting some current singers who might claim that his singing was very old-fashioned. Or whose songs would never be a hit today. There's almost nothing we couldn't look that far back on and criticize about anyone by modern standards. So I think any comparison, "in retrospect," of an old entertainer's style with today can be left out of the lead as mostly irrelevant. --Light show (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Noah's Ark
Please comment on Talk:Christian ethics
Advice and Notifications
Thank you. I will keep this in mind for future edits. I am very grateful for calling my attention.I will appreciate if you can give me additional pointers as well.
Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)