User talk:Jeecee75

Welcome!

Hi Jeecee75! I noticed your contributions to Indigenous peoples of the Americas and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HiLo48 (although I've been on Wikipedia for many years)! I saw your post about Wikipedia editors and wanted to ask you how to get "social justice warrior" administrators to stop reverting my neutral-tone edits. Jeecee75 (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pls review Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Style Guide that is based on

This and This. You also need to be aware of our WP:3RR. Moxy-

03:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a style guide that you and a few other people came up with that isn't known to the general readership of Wikipedia. Even now that I know about it, I don't agree with it. Wikipedia is for everybody, not just the self-appointed guardians. Jeecee75 (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not capitalizing "indigenous" is not a sign of disrespect, and it's the grammatically correct way to write that word when it's not part of a proper noun. And how is a Web site from a government entity in British Columbia more authoritative than the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (https://www.bia.gov/guide/editorial-guide)? You don't have a governmental consensus. Jeecee75 (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Manual of Style is not the be-all-end-all in terms of grammar; it's a style guide, not a grammar book. There's no rule that says that Wikipedia needs to be edited according to the Chicago Manual of Style. Jeecee75 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the guidance of the Associated Press, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA and others mentioned above.

Style Guides on Indigenous terminology and other issues. Like "Native American", "Indigenous" is capitalized when referring to people.

From the Associated Press

AP changes writing style to capitalize ″b″ in Black. By The Associated Press, June 19, 2020. "The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place."

From APA style

APA Style - Racial and Ethnic Identity. Section 5.7 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition, September 2019.
Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. ... capitalize terms such as “Native American,” “Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize “Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations”).

From The Chicago Manual of Style

Capitalization: 'We would capitalize “Indigenous” in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase “indigenous” would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species.'

Netherzone (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pls see MOS:STYLERET Moxy-

04:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you follow; capitalizing "indigenous" when it's not part of a proper noun is grammatically incorrect and violates Wikipedia's internal policy of neutrality. Jeecee75 (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to symbolically, through language, reverse the wrongs of the past isn't Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia's mission is to spread information in a neutral point of view. You're not doing that when you capitalize "indigenous" when it's not part of a proper noun. Jeecee75 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this exchange yet when I left the message before. So, three editors have now told you about this policy, and I have made clear to you that we all have to follow policy on Wikipedia. You are not being singled out. Wikipedia operates by consensus so, yes, there are rules we all have to follow. It doesn't matter whether or not we agree with them. If we refuse to follow the rules, there are other sites to post on. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing "indigenous" isn't a rule on Wikipedia. Jeecee75 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't refuted anything I wrote. Jeecee75 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. We have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style that you might want to look over before making changes. In particular, per MOS:RACECAPS, Indigenous is capitalized on Wikipedia. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Indigenous" is not capitalized on Wikipedia. Only you and a small group of leftists decided that. Wikipedia isn't your fiefdom. You are violating Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by capitalizing "indigenous." Signed a centrist, not a rightist. Jeecee75 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you and your so-called consensus decided that "cat" would now be spelled "kat," that still wouldn't make you right. And you're not right about "indigenous." Jeecee75 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Please don't bother me anymore. Jeecee75 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC) and then blanked the page. While users have the right to blank their talk, right now you are in the midst of disruption and other editors will find it useful to read what is happening here. My reply I was writing as you were blanking:

Then don't make disruptive, WP:POINTY edits and personal attacks on other editors. All Wikipedians have a duty to protect the 'pedia from disruption. Those of us given the extra buttons are especially tasked to do so. Maybe take a break. Read up on policy then decide if this is the place for you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your edits as disruptive to the accurate flow of information. Where's my right to prevent your disruption? Jeecee75 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Indigenous peoples of the Americas, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop changing the article to your preferred version rather than engaging in a discussion on the article talk page to gain consensus with other editors. Propose the changes you would like to make, then wait (patiently, please) for others to weigh in with their thoughts. This is a collaborative project, and it is asked that you engage with others in a collegial and collaborative manner. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Netherzone (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unexplained changes to information on Wikipedia, as you did at Nigga. You have taken your issue with capitalization now to changing direct quotes, which, per WP:MOS are to be left as-is. Given your history of disruptive editing, this strikes me as WP:POINTY editing. Is there any reason I should not block you now? Actually. You've wasted enough of our time. Out of the pool. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you Jeecee75 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you block me for 32 hours, you piece of shit? Jeecee75 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Editing while logged out is not permitted. Blanking your logged out talk page 96.40.112.10 does not resolve the problem. Netherzone (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]