User talk:Imagine&Engage

Welcome!

Hello, Imagine&Engage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 02:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic essentialism

I'm notifying you that your article Strategic essentialism is up for deletion. I didn't nominate it or vote for or against it, but I thought you should know about the vote. Brian G. Crawford 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating signifiers

Floating signifiers has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt it is more a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:WINAD for relevant guidelines and improve the article if possible. If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Ludic postmodernism. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Strategic Essentialism

My pleasure: saving AfD canditates is a nice inclusionist pastime. Sorry to hear you got a bonus at work... David Sneek 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

This article used to be a trainwreck and I have been trying to rewrite it to cover all academic approaqches to "culture". The section on "cultural studies" is weak, and one topic that perhaps could be better explored is the idea of "anti-essentialism" as an important theme of or infuence on cultural studies' approaches to "culture." Could you look at the section and see how you could develop it? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a need for some discussion about global culture -I am thinking of work by Eric Wolf, Arjun Appadurai, and George Marcus. I created this section but it needs real expansion, I hiope you will consider contributing. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the long delay, and than you so much for the recommendation. I have been working on other projects and have not kept up with Wikipedia. I will think about effective changes to the culture studies section as well as "global culture studies" as exemplified by Appadurai. In particular, we need to properly acknowledge the contributions of Foucauldian discourse theory in this. All the best. Imagine&Engage 21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't object to anything you say. i do not have time to work on that article any more, but if you ever do - well, I thin it is an important article that you can help improve.

_{_{Subscript text}}

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

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-1932 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.

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 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.

Doug Weller talk 07:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Greetings User:Doug Weller I assume that this is a boilerplate notice and I will keep these strictures in mind. If one of my edits looks like it might violate policy please indicate specifically which edit and why it is an issue. I am very interested in making sure that Wikipedia is the highest quality site that it can be, but am not able at this time to learn Wikipedia policies in chapter and verse (they do seem to get rather arcane sometimes, especially as they are selectively employed by many top editors) and I hope that there is a small discretion for useful WP:BOLD entries. I feel that my edits on Glenn Greenwald, for example, are quite useful and carefully written. Imagine&Engage (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of helping you, I realize this isn't what you asked about, but can you please do a quick read of WP:INDENT and try to follow it so I don't have to keep reformatting your comments? Thanks in advance. R2 (bleep) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and thanks. As a newbie, I am trying to follow the correct indentation guidelines as per WP:INDENT, but sometimes don't get it right. Thank you so much for your assistance. Imagine&Engage (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller I am waiting for a reply. Thanks. Imagine&Engage (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know how I missed your request except to say that I have a huge watchlist and a variety of responsibilities on Wikipedia and a lot of things that I do when not on Wikipedia. And that might have been when I was lucky enough to acquire a lovely 4 year old Merle poodle that distracted me quite a bit. I just took an extremely brief look at some of your edits (by hovering over the links and reading what I could see that way, not be going to the full pages I admit) and they seem both thoughtful and good. If you read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV - and WP:BLP as you write about living people, you should read that. Just try and get the basics first, don't worry if you don't understand it all. You can always ask at atheh WP:Help Desk if you have any questions. A couple of useful tips - read the top of talk pages to see if there are any restrictions, and when you edit make sure you see if a notice pops up at the top about restrictions. Then there's Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia and the Help:Directory. You could add those links to your user page.

As alerts (which are as you say boilerplate and are routine) have to be given yearly, I have to add them again. Unfortunately I also have to add some restrictions on articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict which apply to you as someone who does not yet have 500 edits. They don't restrict you from using talk pages.

Finally, I'd like to see you edit more as I think you could become a good contributor to the project. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your in-depth reply and encouragement. I will take that into account, though my deeper concerns remain unaddressed. I have interacted with others who have attempted edits, and there is no worse way to discourage contributions than when careful research and editing are undone not by refutation of well-referenced facts but by a selectively employed bureaucratic stricture. Imagine&Engage (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal of alerts

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-1932 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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 11:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice for the 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.

Doug Weller talk 11:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 11:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. You can always ping me if you aren't sure about something and I'll try and respond! Doug Weller talk 11:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]