User talk:GreatChimp

Welcome

Hello, GreatChimp, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Michaelas10 (T|C) 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I'm curious about something. How are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies after just four days on the site? The reliable sources policy isn't something new users typically come across. We had another user on those pages recently who was trying to use that policy to delete content he didn't like. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. Look above, I was made aware of wiki policy about 4 day ago. GreatChimp 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who've been here for four days typically don't start policy-oriented debates. I suggest that you spend some time editing on Wikipedia and observing the way policies are applied before you start trying to apply those policies to others' edits. Your attempted application of multiple policies to remove positive information about Alpha Phi Alpha borders on POV-pushing, which I hope wasn't your intent. As you continue to build experience here, you'll understand the policies better. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning a statistic and point of view pushing are 2 totally different things. IF a fraternity website states that 75% of black lawyers are members of Alpha Phi Alpha (which brings into question reliability [1] and the American Bar Association states that 55% of black lawyers are male and 45% are female. How do you account for the 20% of black lawyers who aren't male? This in light of the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is exclusively male. GreatChimp 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

What do you need help with? Cbrown1023 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help. I have a question concerning reliable sources. in the Alpha Phi Alpha Article, "60% of black doctors, 75% of black lawyers, 65% of black dentists, and close to 90% of black college presidents in the United States." If a fraternity website states that 75% of black lawyers are members of Alpha Phi Alpha [2] (which brings into question reliability [3] and the American Bar Association states that about 55% of black lawyers are male and 45% are female [4] . How do you account for the 20% of black lawyers who aren't male? This in light of the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is exclusively male.

The article is the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. I am on the talk section and the user:MrDarcy says that they meant to say black male lawyers. Which isn't what the reference stated. I was simply asking for another source such as a government agency, independent newspaper, or poll result that can support these claims. With numbers like 65%, 75%, and 90% i'm assuming some kind of poll was taken at some point in time. It just seems to be rather dubious especially in calls into question reliability. [5]

"Partisan and extremist websites

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although bias is not in itself a reason to declare a source unreliable.

Organizations or individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist — such as Stormfront or the Socialist Workers Party — should not be used as sources, except in articles about themselves; that is, they may be used as primary sources but not as secondary ones. They should be used with caution and should be supported by other sources.

Company and organization websites

Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." Should this statement continue to stay in the article if it can't be supported except by it's own organizational website and part of it continue to stay if it has been disproven? User:MrDarcy doesn't seem to want to really discuss this issue on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha outside of lecturing me about being new to the site. [6] . Thank you for any and all help. GreatChimp 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You give a very convincing argument, but I think that the state should stand. The article in question is a featured article. Featured articles represent some of the past Wikipedia pages and go under intense scrutiny and editing before becoming one. I checked and the statement was there when it became a FA, so they were oviously okay with it.

I don't think that Mr. Darcy was lecturing you about being new to the site. He was just commenting that it takes a long time and a lot of editing and exposure to the policies for one to understand them and to be able to apply them correctly.

If you have any more questions or concerns the following users maintain that page and should be able to give you further help: Ccson and Robotam. Cbrown1023 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the statement under review at any point? GreatChimp 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for "You were blocked by Pschemp for the following reason (see our blocking policy): sockpuppet of banned user MyKungfu." I don't know what a sockpuppet of banned user MyKungFu is. Can anyone help me with this? thank you. GreatChimp 07:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to request an unblock, please use the {{unblock}} tag instead of the {{helpme}} tag. Thanks, Tangot a ngo 07:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, {{unblock}} doing it now. GreatChimp 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GreatChimp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for "You were blocked by Pschemp for the following reason (see our blocking policy): sockpuppet of banned user MyKungfu." I don't know what a sockpuppet of banned user MyKungFu is. Can anyone help me with this? thank you.

Decline reason:

Oh please. You know exactly who User:MyKungFu is, and you patterned your username after mine. You've been blocked, which means you are not authorized to edit Wikipedia. Sorry. -- Alphachimp 12:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I didn't even know what Mykungfu was until you clarified it. I didn't pattern my username after anyone. It seems like there is more than one chimp, Alphachimp, psechimp, etc. I can't edit wikipedia under my SN, but i can do so without one. Does that make any kind of sense? GreatChimp 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]