User talk:Jackgrimm1504

Feel free to post me a messege.

Jackgrimm1504, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jackgrimm1504! 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 Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

a group of Catholic laity

You should prove that the problem is notable. Your only source is a blog. There are plenty of petitions around. Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is notable enough when one of the largest Church affiliated LGBT rights adovacy groups mentions it. New Ways Ministry is such a group. Not to mention it's not a "blog" blog, its their normal news site, they just call it a "blog". Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention it's a Polish problem - the LGBT Free zones are a Polish problem. Therefore most of the sources are in Polish. Dozens of posts on all social media platforms, discussions in the media. New Ways Ministry is one of the sources outside of Poland that mentioned it. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No, we may speak here - it wasn't inpolite. It was a fact, you're assosciated with Knights of Columbus and diocese of Phoenix in Arizona, US - you've said it yourself, and therefore it can hardly be considered as reliable editor for content on LGBT in Poland. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not for you to determine nor a reason for you to assume bad faith, and in your short career you have also cast aspersions on @Xx236:, which was the one I decided to remove. There is no call for you to be commenting on personal characteristics of contributors here. You need to better acquaint yourself with policies and guidelines, such as what constitutes a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You should check your facts then - reliablity policies doesn't ban "blog styled" news, only the self published blogs. Large organizations, that are otherwise considered reliable can publish their news whatever the way they want and it's not against the WP:RS.Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Uh, New Ways is self-publishing this blog. They are not a news-reporting org, they are an "advocacy and justice" lobbying group. I am curious what metrics you are using to determine a "large organization" and "otherwise considered reliable"? Elizium23 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You would call other adovcacy groups from Poland that also posted it as unreliable, so what would be the point of using them? WP:RS clearly states that

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. "

This is such a case - there is a notable case (it was noticed in the US eventhough it is about Poland), and the note clearly states it is the opinion of a group, as all petitions are. It is a fact, because it did occur. So I don't see what is your problem with it?

Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

edit warring

As you're fairly new here, I wanted to make sure you were aware of and understood the rule against edit-warring. Reverting three times is considered to be edit warring. The information is at WP:3RR. --valereee (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am fairly aware of that. But it goes both ways, am I correct? Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It does, but I've only reverted you once. Elizium has reverted that material twice now; I suspect they're done, as most experienced editors here don't want to come anywhere close to edit warring. --valereee (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elizium23 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

editing

Hey, JackGrimm, I can see you're getting frustrated. I think the problem may be that you have, possibly in all innocence, made your very first edits at a highly contentious article. Both articles about Poland and articles about gender issues tend to have lots of strong opinions from various camps. Add to that your inexperience with WP policies and guidelines and you've got a recipe for drama.

Editing WP in general is mostly fun, but when you get into the drama areas, it can be frustrating even for experienced editors. What I would suggest is that you edit some other areas that are of interest to you while you become more familiar with WP. If you still believe this information belongs in this article after you've made 500 or so edits, come back and take another stab at it. I suspect that by the time you've done that many edits, you'll have learned why this information can't be used.

I'm going to offer some unsolicited advice; take it for what it is. First, never ever make the argument that simply because someone identifies with a certain group that they can't edit objectively. While it may very well be true that they have a bias, it is never a good idea to make the argument simply on that. So just ignore those suspicions. They don't really matter, and they're likely to get you accused of making personal attacks, incivility, or not assuming good faith. The argument that matters is on WP policy. They can either refute it or not, and consensus will usually come down on the side of policy.

Second, when multiple highly-experienced editors (you can tell how many edits an editor has made by hovering over their name on talk pages) are telling you that your understanding of policy is incorrect, err on the side of believing they are well-intentioned editors who are just trying to help you follow policy. Go read the policy they're referring to. The policy regarding New Ways Ministry as a source is at WP:RS, and you can also look them up at WP:RSN. If they've never even been discussed -- if there are no archived discussions of them, which it doesn't look like there are -- there's a very good chance WP doesn't consider them a reliable source. The policy on the fact that even NWM didn't mention the lgbt-free zone but the petition did deals with original research; even if they were a reliable source, if they didn't mention the zones, we can't mention them either because that would represent original research, which is covered at WP:OR. We avoid original research.

Finally, the fact the petition has only been mentioned in an obscure sources and social media IS the reason we don't include it. We don't include things that SHOULD have gotten more coverage in the press. We cover things that ARE covered in the press. We aren't a newspaper; newspaper reporters can argue to their editors about what should receive coverage. They can do original research. We only cover what OTHERS have covered. Almost without exception that is our policy. We never cover something because it "deserves" to be covered. That is an absolute bedrock policy of WP.

I can see that you are well-intentioned, and I'm happy to help. Ping me or post to my talk page if you have questions. --valereee (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Valereee: for your long reply. I think I do understand everything now, and I will be far more careful next time I'm doing edits, if I'm going to do any, 'cause I have to say it has been pretty traumatic experience for me. As you may know the whole ordeal started with accusation of New Ways Ministry of being "a blog", which it wasn't, hence why I've defended leaving it in the article (due to it being simply not true). When Icewhiz and you presented me with the good reasons why it shouldn't be included, I've stepped back. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, glad to see it, and hope to see you around on other articles of interest to you! If you have questions, I'm around! --valereee (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)