User talk:100.6.87.191
July 2024
[edit]
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. C F A 💬 19:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks) for a period of 60 hours for disruptive editing.
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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)- you guys wont do simple research to confirm any of what is put in this article. meanwhile, i live two miles from this family, am in the same field and same employer as this guy's dad, but you guys think you have all the answers based on your google searches of articles on the kid 100.6.87.191 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's correct, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. We do not conduct our own research, we base our articles on information published by reliable sources with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not anonymous IP editors who claim to know this and that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- dad isnt a social worker. in pa, social workers have title protection, meaning it is illegal to call yourself a social worker if you dont have a degree in social work. the state board is "state board of social workers, professional counselors, and marriage and family therapists." when you go onto the person search feature on pals.pa.gov, dad will come up showing social work but that only means what board oversees his license. if you look at the license, it starts with "PC" meaning professional counselor, but you all still have his dad as a social worker. but in your other posts you say parent info is irrelevant so why do you have on your page his parents's occupations as "social workers" they are both LPCs 100.6.87.191 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- We say they are social workers because the reliable sources that are cited for that information, CNN and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, say they are social workers. You saying otherwise is not a reliable source, and we can't change anything based on that. If you believe that information is wrong you should contact those publishers to correct their articles, and if they do publish a retraction, then we can edit the article. I can't find CNN's contact page but the Tribune's email is corrections
triblive.com. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I thought when wikipedia has moderators on an article, it suggested legitimacy, but guess not! 100.6.87.191 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- glad, though, that it sounds as if you realize i know what im talking about and im being honest. 100.6.87.191 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're wrong - I accept your explanation; I was married to a social worker and have an (unrelated) professional designation myself, I know there can be weird laws about their use in certain contexts, or in general. But you probably also know in your line of work that people less familiar with the legal implications might refer to anyone who works in a related occupation as a "social worker" for convenience, even if they're not technically correct, and that seems to be what our reliable sources are doing. All I'm saying is we have to go by how reliable sources describe things - that's our policy, and that does mean that we are vulnerable to publishing information that is wrong because sources that are supposed to be reliable have published it first. It's a good reason why a lot of editors, myself included, believe that Wikipedia should not cover breaking news at all - breaking news coverage is inherently unreliable (because everyone is rushing to break the story, instead of fact-checking and considering whether anything is relevant to publish in the first place) but better information is always published later. Part of being considered a reliable source is a history of publishing corrections and retractions, and we will probably see some of that in the coming days. They might correct "social worker" to a proper designation, or they might drop it altogether (personally I think it's not really relevant what an assassin's parents do for a living), and then we'll follow whatever happens. At any rate, calling other editors "dipshits" isn't going to solve anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- so i did email the trib but fox news figured it out first https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-crooks-parents-registered-pennsylvania-professional-counselors-records.
- do you consider them reliable? i imagine you would, considering cnn to be reliable.
- im still puzzled why, if you say the parents' professions arent relevant, you have the article reporting on it? sounds contradictory. 100.6.87.191 (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- and to further add to my initial writing about dad's employer, here is "reliable" evidence:
- https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/pittsburgh/news/federal-investigators-trying-to-learn-more-about-trump-rally-shooter-thomas-crooks/
- my thing is, if you all would have just communicated with me about why the social work issue wasnt being addressed, rather than initially blocking me, things might have turned out differently and i may have understood and not gotten vulgar. only once i got vulgar did i get a personal message.
- you have to realize that social workers are getting a bad reputation lately as our government/media is trying to use us as scapegoats due to hatred of the police. we've already got a reputation as being left-wing, "touchy feely" and people target that in chat rooms and comment threads. i think it's just important for you all to clarify that to avoid further demonization of social workers 100.6.87.191 (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, no, Fox News is considered "generally unreliable" for politics and science reporting (see WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), while CNN is considered reliable for news reporting (WP:RSPCNN). But Time has also published their own report ([1]) that refers to them as licensed professional counselors, and I've never seen anyone argue against Time. I've made the edit, and I'm going to reset your block so that you can respond if anyone has questions about this on the talk page. I realize that you're passionate about this but please keep the emotion to yourself as best you can. The only outcome of "getting vulgar" when you don't get your way is that you end up blocked, and then you still don't get your way. If you need help, please feel free to ask. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're wrong - I accept your explanation; I was married to a social worker and have an (unrelated) professional designation myself, I know there can be weird laws about their use in certain contexts, or in general. But you probably also know in your line of work that people less familiar with the legal implications might refer to anyone who works in a related occupation as a "social worker" for convenience, even if they're not technically correct, and that seems to be what our reliable sources are doing. All I'm saying is we have to go by how reliable sources describe things - that's our policy, and that does mean that we are vulnerable to publishing information that is wrong because sources that are supposed to be reliable have published it first. It's a good reason why a lot of editors, myself included, believe that Wikipedia should not cover breaking news at all - breaking news coverage is inherently unreliable (because everyone is rushing to break the story, instead of fact-checking and considering whether anything is relevant to publish in the first place) but better information is always published later. Part of being considered a reliable source is a history of publishing corrections and retractions, and we will probably see some of that in the coming days. They might correct "social worker" to a proper designation, or they might drop it altogether (personally I think it's not really relevant what an assassin's parents do for a living), and then we'll follow whatever happens. At any rate, calling other editors "dipshits" isn't going to solve anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- glad, though, that it sounds as if you realize i know what im talking about and im being honest. 100.6.87.191 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I thought when wikipedia has moderators on an article, it suggested legitimacy, but guess not! 100.6.87.191 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- We say they are social workers because the reliable sources that are cited for that information, CNN and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, say they are social workers. You saying otherwise is not a reliable source, and we can't change anything based on that. If you believe that information is wrong you should contact those publishers to correct their articles, and if they do publish a retraction, then we can edit the article. I can't find CNN's contact page but the Tribune's email is corrections
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |