User talk:Apercuwanderer

Welcome!

Hello, Apercuwanderer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quinton Feldberg: Thank you for the kind words and the welcome, Quinton! It's a pleasure to be here and to receive the tips you referred me. Apercuwanderer (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi - as a new editor we don't expect you to understand how Wikipedia works. I've reverted some of your edits as they seem to be what we call "original research". Our articles are not supposed to reflect our own understanding or knowledge of the subject, but what reliable sources say about the subject. If you read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR you'll get a better idea of what is needed to develop good articles. I had the same problems when I was new. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Apercuwanderer, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Doug Weller talk 18:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Apercuwanderer. You have new messages at Talk:John_the_Baptist.
Message added 08:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

You're welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

The Rebel Media dubious tag:

The correction in the New York Times you referred to had nothing to do with the text which was quoted in the article. They were correcting a historical error to do with an unrelated reference to the queen of France. Your decision to add this tag was misleading and disruptive Edaham (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edaham: Thank you for the correction. I misread the intent of the "Correction" paragraph in the citation. However, the "dubious" tag was not misleading, as the citation was indeed irrelevant. I have provided a better edit to the article, with an explanation of much detail as to why "far-right" is an inaccurate and libelous term for Rebel Media and why the NYT article cited was irrelevant for that term to be used against Rebel Media. Apercuwanderer (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edaham: After reading through some of the Rebel Media talk pages you mentioned, I see that I'm not the only one that has raised this issue about that libel and its irrelevant sourcing. It seems like such a matter has put a lot of pressure on you.

However, as an apparent mod, you should be doing a heck of a better job of controversy/conflict resolution. Allowing my last edit (ie, the deletion of the slanderous phrase and its irrelevant source) or something along the same lines to stay would have been the first step, as I was trying to keep the article neutral and non-partisan. As it is, you're causing your own headaches by letting the matter continue to foment.

Something I don't understand: why is it you responded to the crux of the explanation of the first edit of mine you reverted, but for the second, you didn't respond with anything but the very vague "it belongs there because it has a source"? That sounds like you've refused to consider anything in the explanation for my second edit. Can you please explain to me as to why? Because you seem very impartial and demagogic for aggressively defending such a blatantly false characterisation of a clearly anti-far-right news organisation and bullying anyone who wants to dissipate such unnecessary controversy, despite them providing strong and detailed arguments for doing so. I'd appreciate a speedy and detailed response from you about this. Apercuwanderer (talk) 06:29, 13 August– 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a moderator. I'm a Wikipedia editor following the bold - revert - discuss guideline. I reverted your bold edit. The thing to do now, rather than reinstating your edit, would be to discuss the principle behind the edit on the article's talk page - as I see you are now doing. You are reading far more emotional content into this process than there actually is. On the talk page we should now, dispationately and in a friendly - even jovial manner - discuss the best sources from which to draw the text of the article. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Baked Alaska (entertainer). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug.

Would you please mind clarifying what was poorly referenced or controversial about my edits of Baked Alaska (entertainer)? Save for the Bibliography section and the content thereof, the edits I added were supported and described by the already-present content of the article or were clarifications of already-cited information, as I noted in each edit's description.

Thank you for your feedback.Apercuwanderer (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Apercuwanderer (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm here, this edit was not in the source as I said in my edit summary. We are very strict about WP:BLPs. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1924 Democratic National Convention

You seem to be a Republican. If you are, how can you edit the article in a NPOV manner? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. The "'Klanbake meme'" edit you seem to be referring to violated NPOV, as I described in its article's Talk Page. Apercuwanderer (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apercuwanderer, I think you are right that en-wikipedia while supposedly saying articles should be NPOV, its political centre of gravity is well to the Left. Any article written from a moderate or conservative perspective, or *about* a moderate or conservative, attracts a swarm of hostile editing. If either you or me were to insert hagiography into Noam Chomsky, for example, nobody would touch it. Trump/Pence and Mitch McConnell etc. aren't "fascists" or "Nazis", at worst, they are Rupert Murdoch newspaper-style right-wing populists. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Civil War Democratic Party

You are edit-warring at The Birth of a Nation about a fact that is recognized by all reliable sources. Besides Lemann who is cited, see for instance Garrison Nelson, John William McCormack: A Political Biography here; Robert Kagan, Dangerous Nation here; Jean Baker, Affairs of Party here; or any other reality-based source. These typical electoral maps of the era are instructive. Ewulp (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ewulp. Thank you for the instructive resources. My edit stands as there is no justification (in the body of the section nor in the relevant citation) for assuming that simply the "Southern-half" of the Democratic Party was entirely or largely responsible for anti-African-American measures. Direct, cited evidence would be needed to prove that the phrase "Southern-dominated" is true or relevant (and not rather a possible attempt to color and obscure history), which has not yet been provided. Apercuwanderer (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "direct, cited evidence" mean? We don't conduct original research in Wikipedia, we cite reliable sources—mainly secondary sources. These have been provided. The Birth of a Nation is a film about the American Civil War and the Reconstruction era that followed. The American Civil War was a war between eleven Southern states (aka the Confederate States of America) and the Northern states. That the Democratic Party had its center of gravity in the South is of course relevant in this context. What purpose is served by obscuring this? Ewulp (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Direct, cited evidence" is opposed to uncited statements such as the irrelevant and NPOV "Southern-dominated" label that you are vigourously attempting to defend (note that many Northern Democrats such as Democratic-nominated presidential candidate Stephen A. Douglas were pro-slavery and pro-Confederacy, nullifying the significance of the classifier "Southern-dominated" for the NPOV reader). Moreover, "The American Civil War was a war between eleven Southern states (aka the Confederate States of America) and the Northern states" and "the Democratic Party had its center of gravity in the South" are two statements you made that are both uncited and neither of which you have given a reason as to why they are relevant or necessary for the purposes of this article. You are encouraging original research and a non-neutral POV by defending these uncited and unnecessary edits, as exemplified by the very words of your defence, here. Apercuwanderer (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at 1924 Democratic National Convention shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug. Thank you for the warning. I apologize for the perception that I was edit warring and for the notifications-trouble this may have caused you. The reason this issue arose is because the user Ewulp deleted my edits of this particular article without any sort of justification or discussion, multiple times, and then (via my personal Talk Page) began accusing me of being in an edit war with him because I continued to reinstate my edits that he unjustifiably continued to delete. Therefore, I am not sure how I am involved in an edit war simply because I was reinstating edits that were deleted without any reasons given or discussion had. If you think I'm misunderstanding something here, please explain and let me know why when you have the time. Apercuwanderer (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's editwarring. Reinstating is reverting if done shortly after the material was removed. It doesn't matter if you're wrong or right. Read the links above. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]