User talk:Christinam

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, Christinam!

I actually noticed you the other day when I reverted some of your edits on Anti-Americanism :(. Don't take it badly. This often happens, particularly when you're first starting out. Anyhow, I followed your name and noticed you hadn't received a welcome package. Here are some good things to check out:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page. In case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (~~~~). To customize your signature, look here.

A couple other points: use edit summaries when you're making significant changes to alert others to what you're up to and don't be afraid to go to article talk pages to discuss any content concerns you might have. And remember:Be Bold! Marskell 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War Edits

Please cite sources for your numbers, and please rephrase the awkward phrases. Thanks for being bold! KevinPuj 01:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are from the relevant section in the article, where sources are also discussed. Citing sources once is enough.

US

Hey, I appreciate everyone trying to work towards a neutral point of view, but by putting in the "police state" picture in the article United States and then saying that the effects of history are still in the social structure, that was way too over the top. If you're going to include controversial statements, always try to cite your sources, and explain your reasoning for including it. Joshdboz 19:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism edits

Here is the article describing the headlines you saw fit to remove from Anti-Americanism. Please ask people before deciding what is "unsourced nonsense." Marskell 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon! Have you never seen anything like this? You have a problem with refs, go and look for some. Marskell 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, there's tons of opposing definitions of the subject; the sources given do not claim that their definitions were the "correct definitions". That's why any declaration should be introduced with "sometimes claimed to be".--Christinam 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been described" does not, syntactically, require a "sometimes." And given that the next sentence explicitly notes that there are other definitions the insertion becomes silly. And I'm sorry, asking for a cite on "The burning of the American flag...is a common symbol of anti-American protest" is intelligence insulting. Marskell 08:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But who says it's the most common description, and therefore should be presented as the primary alternative? People do burn flags in the Middle-East, but there are protests elsewhere as well, and likely much, much more. In France you may have people sitting in front of U.S. after civilians have died. They merely burn cannabis. And protests can happen in many other ways as well, by wearing a peace ribbon, for instance. So yes, you need citation for such a dramatic statement.--Christinam 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly, the caption says "a common" not "the most common". Check it: [1]. American flag burning/desecration in Madrid, Bogota, Paris, Berlin, Mexico City and Los Angeles. And that's one of 35 pages. You might flip through them if you're still convinced burning the American flag is not a common protest symbol. I'd honestly suggest that a majority of American flag purchases by non-Americans are for the express purpose of burning them or some other form anger ventilation. On a conciliatory note, I have tweaked the first line and sources to address some concerns. Marskell 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a citation that it's even common?--Christinam 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what to say, except this: beside the "article" tag there is one called "discussion" on every article. Click it first and suggest what you want before gutting an intro. I'll keep reverting, if this is your definition of NPOV. The talk is open. Your latest edit was a largely incoherent POV push (though kudos on the sources--they can be used). Marskell 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that I don't want to bite a new editor. But you can't edit like this. I asked for specifics without talk response for a week and when you did respond in full, rather than asking for collaboration on details, you simply gutted the old intro and replaced it with a new one. It doesn't work like that. Marskell 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way...

You honestly believe Iraq and Guantanamo are "summative" of the topic and belong in the intro. Why not:

My Lai and Vietnam?

Colonialism and the Spanish-American war? If this were 1906, surely you'd want to include the Phillippine insurrection.

What about the Texas Annexation? What about American slavery?

This is precisely why details belong in the body and not in the lead. There are a 1001 anti-Bush rants on the Wiki; it does a disservice to this topic to simply start with another one here. Marskell 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever even read the articles you cite, or just about any research on Anti-Americanism? They consistently state that what is today considered as anti-Americanism is overwhelmingly related to the policies of 2000- administration.--Christinam 22:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you ever even read the articles you cite, or just about any research on Anti-Americanism?" Um, ya.

I think this is largely pointless, but I'll try one other means of explaining why recent descriptions do not belong in the intro (or any intro, usually): Anti-Americanism today "is overwhelmingly related to the policies of (the) 2000- administration." Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Anti-Americanism in 1971 was "overwhelmingly related to the policies of 1968". Again, naturally. Vietnam era anti-Americanism was just that: unmistakably related to Vietnam. Now then, assuming America is still around, anti-Americanism in 2029 will be "overwhelmingly related to the policies of 2028." Do you think it won't be? Do you think people will give a shit about Gauntanamo in 2029 and will still be arguing about it? They'll give a shit as much as we give shit about My Lai now--that is, not much.

How much have you read about American history? Sorry to sound like a jerk, but I'm assuming not much if you honestly believe that anti-Americanism exists because of the administration of 2000. People hate Bush, but people hated America long before him (did you know that 9/11 occurred before the Iraq war?) and will keep on hating the place long after he's gone. Your intro is "Bush-dependent"; you're assuming that this topic only has meaning vis-a-vis the current, admittedly loathable, American president and recent policies. It doesn't. Anti-Americanism was not "unexistent" before Bush. It pre-dates and will post-date him.

I'll see you on the talk page and I will bring up major changes before introducing them. Please do the same.

And lastly: everything you added was kept. You didn't waste your time finding sources, it just got moved. I'd suggest you not revert. Marskell 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Christinam. One thing that is stressed here, however, is a spirit of cooperation. It is uncommon to immediately revert an edit in good faith without commentary on the talk page of the article. I don't think it is possible to justify all of those odd and unclear additions to a careful and longtime agreed upon list. Why do you feel every single one is appropriate and worded coherently? Tfine80 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my responsibility to provide arguments if someone does a huge revert without any summary or commentary; it's my responsibility to revert it. If you feel that something should be removed, you have to provide arguments to each single piece instead of sweeping off tons of important information with a dummy statement "pov".--Christinam 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Wikipedia has policies of civility and no personal attacks. This [2] is uncivil, and could be mistaken for a personal attack. Please comment only on content, not other users. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok mention that "conspiracy" is rather non-qualified argument.--Christinam 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not okay to say, "stop pushing your point with immature arguments..." Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You may not have had a chance to read everything yet, so let me point out that we have a three-revert rule that you should look at. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American POV

How can you possibly justify a sentence like: "In comparison to Europe, Japan and elsewhere, Americans are overwhelmingly much more nationalist" or "Because of the lack of international experience, many Americans can be confused with dealing countries and cultures different from their own." Your edits to both the Culture and Arts of the United States articles seem to have the sole goal of denigrating the United States. What is the goal in this? Couldn't you write about other things on Wikipedia? Tfine80 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to denigrate anything, but to balance views that are rather biased because we Americans dominate Wikipedia. It's true that there are very few countries in the world which are anywhere near as nationalist as are - wherever you look, you can see our flag, words painted with America, etc. Actually, in Japan many people don't like at all their national icons such as their flag or anthem (that mood is likely because of history), and in France they would just look stupid. I think this it is an important aspect. If there is something poorly expressed please improve it. Also, it's an important aspect that many Americans don't even have passport, and mostly been just to Canada or Mexico (because there's so much to see in the U.S. anyway), while elsewhere it's common to have experience in foreign countries and cultures every year. Comparison to other countries is useful to the reader.--Christinam 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christinam, you may be right about your opinions on American nationalism or ignorance, but they are just that: opinions. As an American living in New York City and who has lived many other places, I vigorously reject those opinions as simplistic stereotypes and do not accept their "truth". Wikipedia's NPOV policy means that you cannot make statements that many would dispute without attributing them to the source that has made the claim (and with these points the claims themselves are largely unprovable). What I don't understand about your contributions to Wikipedia is that making these aggressive claims about the United States is all you are interested in doing on Wikipedia. With my somewhat longer experience in this community, I would note that you are incorrect on your assessments of Americans' sentiment here. The majority of Americans here are liberals/leftists and are perfectly willing to critique the United States. However, everyone on Wikipedia ideally strives to meet our NPOV policy. Cycling dozens of articles to add critical assertions or removing pictures of American planes for example seems only confrontational and not attuned to Wikipedia's culture. Best, Tfine80 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Americanism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..

The request will be posted shortly; I'm doing the notifications first. Marskell 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been temporarily blocked from editing for a 3RR violation at Arab citizens of Israel as User:Marielleh, and for block evasion using User:Christinam. Your second account has been blocked indefinitely, but if you prefer to use it rather than this one, let me know. Please review WP:SOCK for future reference regarding the use of multiple accounts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding another 24 hours for block evasion using User:BenMerill. I also note you've been using User:Donut2, though not to evade the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]