User talk:Display name 99/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Participation at FAR of Andrew Jackson

@El C and Girth Summit:, @FAR coordinators: per this partial block, is this participation acceptable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that you didn't ask me, but my only restriction is that I am blocked from the Andrew Jackson article and its associated talk page. Nobody ever said anything about me being under some kind of Andrew Jackson topic ban. If there were limitations that applied beyond the pages for which I was blocked, I would think that these should have been communicated to me. Display name 99 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Hmm. DN99 is correct that a partial block is not the same as a TBan, so I don't see the act of participation as a policy violation in and of itself. However, I think that the nature of the participation is skirting very close to being a WP:NPA violation. Comments like this:I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors... are not acceptable. It's a rhetorical device as old as the hills: I remember my Latin teacher drawing my attention to similar stuff in Cicero's prosecution of Verres, where he included aspersions that he couldn't prove by saying something like "The court need not consider the question of...". DN99 has been here long enough to know that discussions about content should focus on the content, and not on the authors' motivations, and he cannot get around that by saying he is not questioning their motives (while making it very clear that he does indeed doubt them). I think that DN99 ought to remove those comments, and if he will not the FAR coordinators would be well within their remit to redact them as off-topic and needlessly inflammatory. If DN99 continues to make comments about contributors in areas where he should be focusing on content, it will likely end with his partial block being converted to a site-wide one.

FWIW, I'll also observe that I find the meat of DN99's argument to be weak. He thinks the current version of the article is giving too much weight to some aspects of the subject, and not enough to others; a reasonable position to take perhaps, but he backs it up with nothing more than 'it was better before'. Striking the right balance about a subject like this is obviously difficult, since we all have our own biases and interests that might influence what we think are the more important aspects to cover in more detail and what we can safely skim over. Arguments of this nature should be grounded in the relative weight that recent high-quality scholarship gives the relevant issues, and should not be influenced by expressions of personal opinion, however forcefully expressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw him on my talk page, so I decided to see if any updates were present. You summed it up perfectly and honestly, the best he should do is try to be wary of contributor and article intentions, I guess? No userbase is perfect... and as much as I regret assuming things about him, I'd rather wait until some consensus is reached. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I regret thinking this was some social media website, so I just try to be chill and help out instead of being immature, and I think that's where he needs to improve.

I also believe WP:HELP may be of use. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, I don't think that Girth Summit is going to reply that you make a month and a half after they last posted something here. The fact that you think otherwise is more than a little ridiculous.

You're an inconsequential editor with hardly any contributions here. You aggressively inserted yourself into a dispute which did not concern you and began to relentlessly hound and lecture me in a pretentious and self-righteous tone, misrepresenting my words and actions and not making any references to the actual reasons for the dispute that led to my block because it was clear that you were too lazy to actually look into that. The fact that you think that I, or anyone else, actually cares what you have to say stuns me. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't lazy, I know it's a ridiculously late reply, considering I only use this site if I feel like it.

but me? Pretentious? When you keep calling me things as I attempt to point out how your behavior isn't really suitable for a site like this???? lol okay WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, what behavior? Again, you never addressed the allegations against me which led to my block, so I don't know what conduct you're referring to. You just chimed in later with numerous vague and sanctimonious posts to lecture and degrade me. Do you even know the origin of what happened here? Probably not. Display name 99 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

... look, I didn't look into context. I'm not responding to this ever again cause I now know stuff like this isn't worth my time. Anyway, please refer to what Freoh posted, thank you. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, yes, that was quite obvious. Consider doing that next time before opening your mouth. Display name 99 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No, before I'll stay inactive, I just assumed talking it out would be the case like I was using a social media site. ah well. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, once again, your message is completely incomprehensible. What does "before I'll stay inactive" mean? If you aren't inactive now, then you can't stay inactive. How can you "talk something out" without understanding what that something is? You keep mentioning social media in comparison to Wikipedia but never explain what that has to do with anything. You said that you would never post here again (not the first time) but once again couldn't help yourself from coming back here and saying something else. You're totally inconsistent and your statements mean nothing. A fundamental part of your problem is that you often completely fail to communicate in a way that makes any bit of sense. In addition to trying harder not to sound arrogant and sanctimonious, I strongly suggest that you proofread your messages and improve your English skills if you want to edit here. Now I'm not sure that advice on how to edit Wikipedia from someone who has been blocked as many times as I have means a lot, so do as you like with it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's long. English isn't my first language, so I'll have to explain it in summary:

1. Hey, it's only fair to criticize myself. Just stay chill, okay?
2. Before I'll be inactive. I used "stay" instead of "be", sorry.
3. My replies sometimes do sound incomprehensible, sorry about that. I used to talk about your behavior before I decided to admit I'll be quiet about it (as Freoh warned you about some of the messages you've sent. Not all, some)
4. Fine. Honestly, as long as you also acknowledge your flaws, that's fine.

That's all. I'll leave for real, just don't expect me to reply after this. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, no, it's not long. It's a normal sized paragraph. Your first point doesn't answer what I said. Your constant comparisons to social media are weird because they are completely unexplained. Likewise, you did not address my main concern: how you can lecture and pontificate to me on my behavior without even knowing what my behavior was that led to the block. As far as you not posting here anymore, I'll believe it when I see it. Display name 99 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Calhoun (immigrant)

Hi. I was considering Patrick Calhoun (immigrant) for deletion as I couldn't find many sources on him, until I read what was said about him at John C. Calhoun#Early life. Seeing as you wrote a lot of John C. Calhoun and likely have access to the sources that talk about Patrick, I was wondering if you would be able to add some better descriptors of Patrick in the article (such as farmer, politician etc. whatever the sources say)? Or do you think there would be grounds for AfD here? I think someone who was elected to political office is of sufficient notability. Willbb234 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234, I am semi-retired from editing Wikipedia, and all that I am really doing now is making minor edits to articles that I have already done extensive work on to ensure that they remain in good condition. I am not undertaking any major projects. From a brief glance, I don't see much of a reason to keep that article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC

For the sake of transparency, I did start an RFC on John Adams. Best, --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Rockstone35, thank you for the notification. I saw it and participated. Display name 99 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Donald Wuerl

Hello, I have restored Donald Wuerl to my original edits. Regarding your comment, I provided citations with all of the content that I added; the content without citations was inserted before me and either had dead links or no citations. I attempted to find citations for much of it - if you think it should be deleted, I would agree with that. I welcome any of your edits on this article and appreciate any constructive specific criticisms or suggestions that you have to offer. However, I do not agree with a blanket reversion. Have a good day. Rogermx (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Rogermx, you broke up paragraphs with information cited and did so in a way that several sentences were left uncited. See for example the sentence under the McCarrick section that ends with "Higuera." That sentence was sourced, but when you broke up the paragraph (for some unknown reason), you did not add a new citation, which left it appearing unsourced. You did this again with a paragraph in "Response to Dominus Iesus." The rest of your edits I was more or less indifferent about, but these are two flagrant style violations. You're an experienced editor with over 50,000 edits-almost than twice as many as me. You should know not to do that.

I've gone ahead and re-combined the two paragraphs in question, as I can't see why you separated them anyway, and left the rest as is. Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, thank you for making these revisions. I welcome any other improvements that you could see for this article. Rogermx (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NAC Class of 1975

RE your reversion of my addition concerning the NAC class of 1975.

"This link is just to a list of articles, none of which that I found seem to be about this."

From the Pillar article I cited: "By my count — and thanks to the current NAC seminarian who helped me get a class list — there were ten bishops chosen from the North American College’s Class of 75, including three cardinals: (Cardinal) Cupich, Zurek, Hoeppner, Cote, Mulvey, Kagan, (Leonard) Blair, (Cardinal) Harvey, Provost, and (Cardinal) Burke." -- Which seems to be very pertinent to the article at hand.

"Also, don't put a link in between two pieces of text cited to the same source without adding another link to the earlier source before the new text that you add; it corrupts text to citation integrity."

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but would be open to implementing it if you could explain it further.

As regards to your concerns WRT the Pillar's reliability, they do not seem to be upheld by WP:RSP. The Pillar has not been prior flagged as unreliable, and is used throughout Wikipedia.

Maximilian775 (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Maximilian775, I see the passage that you cited, but the link was to a list of articles, rather than to a single article, which makes it difficult to locate. Is that list fixed or are new articles added to it over time? In the event of the latter, the article with the information that you cited will go further and further down on the list, making it increasingly difficult to locate. Can you get a link just to the individual article in question?

In the Burke article, you added your text with the citation in the middle of a paragraph cited to a different source. That makes it look like the text in the early part of the paragraph is cited to the source that you added rather than to the source at the end of the paragraph. That makes it difficult for the reader to track the information. The solution to this is to add a second citation to the original source ahead of where you put the new information. Refer to WP:TSI.

Regarding the source's reliability, the fact that a source has not been formally identified as unreliable by Wikipedia and has been used elsewhere does not automatically make it reliable. Are there any credentials that the person or persons running the website have? Are they professional journalists or freelance bloggers? The former are generally reliable, and the latter generally not. (I did a little research and it looks like one of the editors is a former contributor at the Catholic News Agency, a reputable source. That may settle the reliability question in your favor, but the issue of the link being to a list of articles rather than to a single article is still outstanding.) Display name 99 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is fixed. That "series" or type of article from the Pillar is a digest of stories they've come out with recently along with additional analysis at the end. Those article pages are stable.

As to the Pillar's reliability, they are career journalists with a professional editorial staff.

Maximilian775 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Maximilian775, I have self-reverted both of my edits. Please keep in mind what I told you about the proper placement of citations. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm on mobile right now and so can't easily make those citation revisions, but will tomorrow. Maximilian775 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Maximilian775, I just did it. No need to worry. I meant to say so in my last reply. Display name 99 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)