User talk:GayAtheistTimPoolFan

Welcome!

Hello, GayAtheistTimPoolFan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: Arab–Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GayAtheistTimPoolFan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi GayAtheistTimPoolFan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Keelan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:New antisemitism are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but given GATPF's evident concern with anti-Semitism, I have to wonder if they are aware that their comments here are basically parroting an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect User:Ezlev all I was doing was giving my criticism for what I viewed as unnecessary slanted criticism for an already highly politicised term, with content that is extremely vulnerable to edit-warring and POV-pushing. Given the protected nature of the article, and the fact that ARBPIA sanctions are issued frequently and come with potentially devastating consequences to a person's wikipedia account. All I was doing was trying to engage in constructive, nuanced conversation about my concerns with wikipedia (particularly in this section of wikipedia) due to the fact that in my opinion (and the opinion of a whole host of other people), that undue weight is given to one side of the argument anad that wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to subersive ideological bias; particularly from a neoliberral and borderline faux-progressive slant (or in a nutshell, Wikipedia's internal Overton Windows is continuously being pushed leftward and that is not ok; aka as nutty as Larry Sanger is, he kind of has a point)GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please focus on suggesting changes and improvements to articles, rather than open-ended wondering or discussion about the subject of articles. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ezlev Thanks for your advice/opinion, I've taken a mental note of it. However I must stress that in my opinion I did exactly that; I suggested changes and improvements. In your opinion however, I engaged in so-called "open-ended wondering or discussion". I'm sorry but I don't agree with your assemsment of my edits GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there User:Sangdeboeuf um no I didn't know that. I'm just trying to point out that the article on Critical Race Theory is a little bit more sanitised in comparison to other related articles like "critical gender theory", "queer theory", and other extensions of critical theory related disciplines that involve other marginalised groups etc. My issue with the article is that it seems after Critical Race Theory started getting attention in conservative media circles (Fox News, NewsMax, TownHall, other assorted NewsCorp outlets etc) the article changed where any mentions of CRT's links to it's parent doctrines (as in Critical Theory, Critical Legal Studies and the Frankfurt School of Thought) and the fact that it's parent and sister disciplines ARE undeniably based on New Marxist thought (as opposed to "Vulgar Marxism" which is primarily about class and workers rights) were either omitted or obscured from the lay-person's perspective, which I view as an attempt to somewhat mislead uninitiated (i.e. those unfamiliar with contemporary intellectual philosophical thought and the culture war that is raging throughout the western world) viewers who have heard and//or read the term thrown around recklessly on mainstream conservative media outlets away from the fact that Critical Race Theory is, in fact actually rooted in contemporary marxist thought. I would like to stress that I find anti-semitism, and other forms of racial prejudice and anti-religious bigotry totally intolerable and inexcusable. Pointing out CRT's links to Marxism however, does not push the "Cultural Marxist"/"ZOG"/"EvilJew" narrative that you are talking about. As a person of partial Jewish ethnic heritage, I am of course vehmently against any form of racism and religious bigotry towards Jews. ThanksGayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:New antisemitism for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller With all due respect Administrator, I'm sorry to say but I reject your accusation that I treated said Wikipedia Talk page as a forum for general discussion/discussion of other topics. The point of my comment was to specifically point out that the narrative that many other wikipedians were pushing were blatantly POV and in many instances, flat-out false. All I did was point out what I thought was bias, omission of relevant context (as well as nuance) and mischaracterisation GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hi GayAtheistTimPoolFan, I wanted to make sure you're aware of this area covered by discretionary sanctions along with the sanctions covering the Arab–Israeli conflict that you've already been notified about. I also hope you'll take a look at my message above about the proper use of article talk pages on Wikipedia. Thanks! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there User:Ezlev , yes I am aware of the ARBPIA sanctions and guidelines in place, which is why I contribute via discussions on the talk pages rather than directly edit articles unilaterally. I find it's much more constructive to discuss my views with other fellow wikipedians, as it helps in the process of achieving consensus, rather than just barging in and making changes that other people might no agree with. Thanks, GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page behaviour is also covered by the sanctions. You've been told they aren't forums but have carried on acting as though they are. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input User:Doug Weller but I have to disagree with you. All I've said is that I don't agree with what was being said in the article and/or in the talk page, and I wish for the article to be revised to be more alligned with Wikipedia's stated policy of "Neutral Point of View" stance, despite, in practice, Wikipedia's de-facto situation of being dominated by left-of-centre, POV pushing quasi-professional neo-intellectual editors GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GATPF, have you ever edited Wikipedia under a different account? It seems unusual for a new editor to have such strong opinions on Wikipedia's de-facto situation of being dominated by left-of-centre, POV pushing quasi-professional neo-intellectual editors. When you say ARBPIA sanctions are issued frequently and come with potentially devastating consequences to a person's wikipedia account, are you speaking from personal experience? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have never edited wikipedia under a different account before (I am not, nor have I ever sockpuppeted); as duly pointed out by NorthByNorthSouth in his criticism of me on the CRT talk page. I'm so green to wikipedia I don't even know how to edit my own about page to add those fancy coloured boxes to display my likes and interests, like the fact that I drive a plug-in hybrid and own a German Shepherd. And no, given that I regularly watch Tim Pool YouTube videos, his IRL podcast with Larry Sanger, and have listen to his criticisms of Wikipedia, in particular his criticism decribing how wikipedia smeared Project Veritas and it's founder James O'Keefe. Not to mention that Wikipedia just stopped short of describing Tucker Carlson as a Nazi, calls cultural marxism an "anti-semitic neo-nazi conspiracy theory" and also says the same thing about the great replacement theory, sanitised any mention of CRT being related to Marxism on it's official wikipedia page after the term started receiving mainstream media attention, and routinely flunks the 3D Test. My opinions are not based on experience, rather based on the realities of the culture war that is raging across the Western World GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you may want to stop and think a moment about whether Pool is actually a fighter in said culture war producing outrage porn to gratify his audience's need for validation and exploit their anxieties. Just a thought. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am capable of my own independent thought and forming my own opinions; and for the record, I don't agree with everythig Tim says, there have been several videos I've given him a thumbs down for. But I don't think he is a grifter, like you are suggesting. A lot of people on the left, like yourself have made that claim about Pool. However, he reports things that are culturally relevent, and/or often overlooked & omitted by the maisntream media, and he calls out their bullsh!t when he sees it. And yes, of course I realise that he is notorious for sensationalising his video titles and being theatrical with his commentary, but having said that a lot of what he says is quite sound, he does his best to source what he says, and he participates actively in fact-checking (and even frame checking).

On Wikipedia we explicitly rely on mainstream sources. While they do sometimes get a story wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight. And on a personal note, blaming the "WikiCabal" when your edits are challenged is unlikely to sway many to your side, in my experience. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal

"Nicki Swift" is a celebrity gossip blog and not remotely a reliable source. There are other problematic sources in your proposed addition, including a primary source and the New York Post. We've no need to be a gossip and rumor-mongering site; if the best you can find is some sensationalist blogs, it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you wish to gain consensus for your proposed addition, you're welcome to discuss it on the talk page - remember, the burden is on the person proposing inclusion, namely you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that NickiSwift is an unreliable source. However, it wasn't my only source. Which is why I included Business Insider and The Independent. One of my sources, in fact, was a Yellow Pages style business listing, aka a public classifieds platform offering professional services from sole traders. So don't be disingenuous and strawman me by implying that NickiSwift was the best source I could find, when MULTIPLE SITES; all with varying levels of accuracy and political bias, have all reported the same thing. How am I supposed to present my proposed edits to the "Imperial Court of Consensus" of the WikiCabal Politiburo (aka the "talk page") if you wipe out EVERYTHING i did? And the only reason the New York Post (or any NewsCorp outlet for that matter) is a problematic source is because the powers that be that dominate Wikipedia, don't like the fact that the NYP eposed Joe and Hunter Biden for the slime balls that they are. Meanwhile the increasingly left leaning New York Times and the Washington ComPost are completely fine. Maybe the wikipedians who have called you a "Tree Hugging Liberal Pansy" aren't vandals after all? Check you bias, you're not the Emir of Wikipedia and I won't be bullied by you GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to present my proposed edits ... if you wipe out EVERYTHING i did? The article's page history preserves all edits made to that page, by whom, and when. Each edit or "diff" can be linked on the talk page for discussion. Since you're evidently familiar with the "undo" function, which is only accessible via the page history, I'm surprised you don't know this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable edit summaries

"Re-undoing your censorship so I can remove the sources you don't like so I can submit my "proposed" edits to the Wikipedia Shura council"

"Happy now User:NorthBySouthBaranof ??" isn't much better. WP:SUMMARYNO says "* Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy."

Please note that the sanctions alerts above cover virtually everything related to the topic areas, including behaviour on talk pages, in edit summaries, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also these restrictions in the Arab-Israeli topic area

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days.

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.[reply]

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]