User talk:Danmakusaur
Hello world!
[edit]Danmakusaur (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Reverted edits on List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada
[edit]Hi! I noticed that you reverted and changed all of my edits to the above article. Since it looks like you watch that page, I thought that I would add my reasons for my additions to the article since I plan on changing it back. For a good reference as to what the page should look like check out this and other articles about law enforcement killings in the United States, that try to share as much details about each given incident as possible. Your changes remove important context to multiple of the killings, and in some, -by omission- create a false narrative of what actually occurred. Considering that this will likely be the only time that these killings will be brought up on Wikipedia, it is important to try to have a concise outline of events that do not omit anything crucial for the sake of brevity. Ideally (in my mind) every one of these entries should follow the basic outline of 1. Why were they in contact with police 2. Details of the incident 3. (if possible) what was the outcome. I hope that we can work together and compromise to make changes to the article that we are both happy with. Qwexcxewq (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Edits were made to keep list items brief. The additions I saw made were simply lengthier, wordier versions of the existing items. A better use of time would be to keep the list up to date. Danmakusaur (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are no rules about keeping list items to the length of one to two sentences that you seem to prefer, as is proven by the larger Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, which has in-detail accounts on par with my additions. This seems to be your personal belief on how things should be on Wikipedia, which does not trump other peoples contributions. Your edits removed details to a point that it changed the narrative of events, (a man chasing an officer with a knife being shot after less than lethal options were unsuccessful becomes a man shot and tased multiple times by police, a woman who is believed to have being doing a suicide-by-cop becomes a woman shot with a toy gun). There are still other items that are longer than anything I added to the article that you did not revert. Why even add additional details if it can't show what happened without omitting anything important? I can explain why all of my edits were useful and not "simply lengthier, wordier version of existing items", for example, a person being called racial slurs by police is important for establishing a racial bias that may have impacted their death, a person having a replica handgun with no indication of it being a toy is important for establishing the reason they were shot, a person shooting a cop before being killed is also important to establish why they were killed. I will try to thin down the text that I added, and I hope that you won't revert that as well. Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your replies here can be short too. Let's work to keep list items to a manageable length, given the size of the article. Danmakusaur (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are no rules about keeping list items to the length of one to two sentences that you seem to prefer, as is proven by the larger Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, which has in-detail accounts on par with my additions. This seems to be your personal belief on how things should be on Wikipedia, which does not trump other peoples contributions. Your edits removed details to a point that it changed the narrative of events, (a man chasing an officer with a knife being shot after less than lethal options were unsuccessful becomes a man shot and tased multiple times by police, a woman who is believed to have being doing a suicide-by-cop becomes a woman shot with a toy gun). There are still other items that are longer than anything I added to the article that you did not revert. Why even add additional details if it can't show what happened without omitting anything important? I can explain why all of my edits were useful and not "simply lengthier, wordier version of existing items", for example, a person being called racial slurs by police is important for establishing a racial bias that may have impacted their death, a person having a replica handgun with no indication of it being a toy is important for establishing the reason they were shot, a person shooting a cop before being killed is also important to establish why they were killed. I will try to thin down the text that I added, and I hope that you won't revert that as well. Qwexcxewq (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)