User talk:LSesom

LSesom, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LSesom! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, LSesom. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm FreeRangeFrog. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Canadian Union of Students, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the article because you were prevented from editing it is not particularly helpful. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FreeRangeFrog, I deleted the CUS statement because it did not adhere to the wikipedia policy to which you directed me. There was even a note, dated 2009, warning that the CUS statement could be removed. I don't agree that a poor stub is better than nothing, not in this case at least. LSesom (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the page serves no purpose. Instead try to source it, or even nominate it for deletion if you wish. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! One thing to note -- unpublished PhD dissertations are not always reliable sources -- see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I'd try changing some citations to other sources if possible, given that the article currently relies heavily on the dissertation. Best, Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, maybe it's fine as is... there aren't so many citations... Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is "Moses 2000"? There is no article by Moses from 2000 cited in long form. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vigilance. Opps. As you can see I'm new at this, and still finding my way around the citation methods. There's no such animal as Moses (2000). The references are to Moses (2001). As you may have realized, there is very little historiography of CUS. Surprising, but true. Since you've switched stuff around, can you make the changes or tell me how? Thanks. I've tried to change it and its got even messier. LSesom (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi LSesom! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:49, Thursday, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

February 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Canadian Federation of Students. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to add references -- I am not finished editing. Would you please just let me finish before blanking me. Thanks LSesom (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have reverted your edits. You have added unsourced or poorly sourced partisan viewpoints, while removing reliably sourced material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained: How am I supposed to add sources if you keep blanking my edit while I'm doing the edit! Will you at least let me finish what I'm doing before pronouncing judgment. I removed the other posts as they unjustly disparage the otherwise good reputation and service that CFS has provided to Canadian students for over 30 years! While some of these posts may be backed by reliable sources such as organization documents and so on, the WAY they are presented and the pieces of information that they leave out suggests a strong anti-CFS bias. So far, my edit is far more neutral and informed then those bits I removed.LSesom (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the material that you removed, the only portion that I could see being validly removed is the section labeled "Translink and free speech" because it involves a legally separate entity. The rest of the material (growth and shrinkage of the organization's membership and lobbying activities) appears to be well-sourced and not to be removed without at least a discussion on the talk page first. As for the material you have added, its partisan nature overrides the availability of any sources (which would have to be partisan sources to source such a partisan view of the organization). Attempting to tie the history of this organization to the "long tradition of national student organization" is meaningless. This organization has a beginning in 1981, regardless of what traditions it built on to get there. Your statement

Unfortunately, there is very little historiography of the CFS. The Federation's history really only exists in minds of past activists and in the few documents they left behind.

followed by a citation to an unpublished thesis indicates that there is little information available to support your version of the facts, while there are sources available to support the facts you are trying to replace.

Your best course of action at this point is to open a discussion on Talk:Canadian Federation of Students and try to discuss the changes you would like to make, with actually valid sources to back up your points. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material on the CFS site is intended to defame CFS and in a sense defame a variety of social justice movements that CFS expresses, such as women's rights, anti-war, anti-racism. Many of the sources are unreliable and in some cases, biased against CFS as is the case of one article from the University of Waterloo Gazette, a rag of the university administration. The writer's cleverly hide behind the rules of Wikipedia to produce a load of anti-CFS bologna.

As for CFS being founded in 1981, this is completely bogus. If you look at the minutes for example, you will see clearly that CFS is a continuation of the national student organization i.e. the National Union of Students. It's misleading to claim that CFS was founded in 1981. You have removed one of the the most significant studies on student movements (Moses 1995) in Canada that outlines briefly the history of student organizations in Canada. Who do you think you are? Articles from a student newspaper are more reliable than a PhD dissertation?

It would be preferable that the CFS page not exist rather than continue to see it function as a toilet stall for anti-CFS grafitti. Like I said above -- to which you did not adequately respond -- just because references are presented (however dubiously) doesn't make for a fair and just representation of the organization. It would be like writing a history of Canada and only focusing on those periods when the Conservatives lost elections, indeed factually, but highly slanted. The current pseudo-history of CFS would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.

Again, the problem is that there is little reliable history of CFS and this allows any Tom, Dick and Sally with an axe to grind come along and create one. Almost all of the CFS page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and should be removed forthwith.

LSesom (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on the "Evolution of Membership" and "Membership Disputes" may be factual and have references, but overall, when taken together, these sections amount to original research and contravene Wikipedia policy on 'no original research.' As this original research is also on a very narrow topic within CFS history, it also contravenes Wikipedia policy of 'neutrality.' It is a slanted disparaging history. There is nothing neutral about discussing periodic attacks on a democratic and long-lasting Canadian institution, especially when there's very little else stated about the organization, in particular it's long-standing social justice concerns e.g. on divestment from South Africa. It might make sense to at least split-off this slanted view of CFS and place it, more appropriately where it belongs: in a page called tentatively Canadian anti-student movement organizations. I've tried to delete these sections and was rapidly undone. I will do so again, if I don't hear of any substantial objections for not doing so.

LSesom (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]