User talk:Marie Paradox/Archive 2

Thanks

...for your positive input at talk:White privilege, I'm very pleased that we've found common ground. I hope my little attempt at humor didn't bother you; most of my early work at WP was in science articles. More recently I've focused on theology and history, so I have to admit I have no real experience with Humanities topics. I'm very much looking forward to learning as we work together. Thanks again and happy editing, Doc Tropics 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. This is a very difficult area to write about. I have suggested that we start a new section on how the theory has been received by the academic community. I think that the more the article is in the third person the better. Racepacket (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For finding a nice source for the Christianity article - the article about NT Wright on the Gospel. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. It has been a joy to work with you and other editors of Christianity. I hope to have more opportunities to do so in the weeks to come. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective would be valuable: Anti Christian Sentiment (Israel)

Hi there. I've noticed your collaborative work on the Christianity article and was impressed by your spirit of cooperation, sensibility and knowledge of the subject. I'm currently trying to resolve issues on another article: Anti-Christian sentiment particularly pertaining to incidents in Israel. I have opened a RfC and outlined the problem here. I would be grateful to have your input should you feel so inclined and think it worth your time. Regards, Veritycheck (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. If you have any recommendations regarding the language you think most accurate to describe the spitting attacks, it would be valuable to help us achieve a consensus. Veritycheck (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the consensus and edited the article Anti-Christian Sentiment accordingly. Please see that it meets your approval. Veritycheck (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gendered noun

Regarding your edits to The Wachowskis, you appear to have a misunderstanding of what MOS:IDENTITY means by "gendered noun". Names are not gendered nouns, and there's no reason to avoid them. Instead of reverting, please continue the discussion on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Marie Paradox. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Standard English

Re: your recent edit note for a "White Privilege" revisions--both "comprised of" and "comprising" are standard English. Another reader accused you of being passive aggressive; I agree. I also consider this quote from you, "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome," to be positively racist.

Somehow it's okay to be racist, as long as it's anti-white racism?! Apostle12 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure my comment was allowable under Wikipedia's guidelines, so I will not try to justify it here. I will, however, try to explain it: I made my comment at the peak of a series of disruptive edits, including edit warring, that got the user in question temporarily banned. I had tried very hard to reach a compromise with the user in question, and both before and after leaving the comment I always treated the user with civility on Talk:White privilege. Again, this is an explanation and not a justification.

What is more salient is that both before and after I left the comment I always tried to keep discussion at Talk:White privilege civil, even though that often involves reaching across the aisle to find compromises with people whose actions I find racist. In the past week alone you have rubbed me and (apparently) other users the wrong way. Presumably you will still want us to work with you on the assumption that you are making edits in good faith. Perhaps then you should look past a comment I made nearly three years ago and focus on matters more pertinent to improving the article. I will not be lured into any further discussion about the distant past, but I will be around, if you want to start making a better future.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, I can (mostly) look past your three-year-old comment. I have erased the more offensive comments I made. (BTW--should I instead line these out? Have seen that done, not sure how.)

As for "rubbing (you) and others the wrong way," I doubt that is avoidable given the tenor of this article. Pushing back against assumptions of "white privilege" seems to annoy those who wish to perpetuate what I believe to be largely a fiction. Apostle12 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that people strikethru edits to their previous comments; you can use the standard HTML tags (<strike></strike>) to accomplish this. Take your time.

While rubbing people the wrong way might not be totally avoidable, I think you will find that if you assume good faith and avoid invective, you will find that people are more willing to work with you. Also, as someone who is familiar with your editing history, I cannot help but think if other editors are annoyed, it has less to do with what you are pushing back against and more to do with the fact that you do not bring references to reliable sources to the table. I think that most editors would be willing to include criticism, but we want to go about it in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a perusal of ~~WP:STRIKE~~ WP:REDACT should tell you what you're interested in. My suggestion would be to revert your own edit that removed the inflammatory comment, and then re-edit it to be in compliance with those guidelines.

Also, the core of the issue is not what you find racist, and I personally would construe these (and other) comments you (Apostle12) have made as acknowledgements that you both have in the past, and intend to continue to disregard WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. I myself have attempted on multiple occasions to offer help with your concerns, but the central issue to me is this: the scholarship on white privilege, whatever you think of it, exists, and our task is to document it for a general audience. The appropriate remedy, if you find this distasteful or offensive, is (excepting errors of fact, or a lack of coverage of scholarly opposing voices in the offending article) to work on articles about alternative points of view within the scholarly literature, while at the same time adhering to WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and acknowledging WP:OPPONENT. this is hard enough for anyone to do, so sometimes even the best editors violate these norms, but they are norms for a reason -- WP does not work well when editors disregard them.

And honestly, like WP:WIP says, there is no time limit for this. I have perhaps been guilty in the past of being too quick to revert edits. while this is not an excuse, i ascribe this in part to the main thrust of my WP interest, medical articles -- explanation being that highly trafficked articles mean errors of fact can have consequences for peoples health if they take WP at face value, which I aim to prevent. Over time I have tried to not be so quick to click Undo outside of that domain, and have benefited from it.

I have seen nothing but civility and conciliatory attitudes towards you (Apostle12), and for the most part, have not seen this reciprocated. When it has been, it has only been after being politely confronted with your inflammatory and disruptive behavior. Please, for the sake of everyone involved, attempt to remedy that moving forward. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deny that my behavior has been inflammatory and disruptive. Apostle12 (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for an RfC/U

Hi,

I would like to request your assistance with drafting an WP:RfC/U, at [1]

Thanks!

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me about this. I do not know what the protocol for this sort of thing is; I hope you do not mind that I have revised the page to add the diff of another apparent NPA violation. I will not take offense, if you decide to revert it for whatever reason.

My only other comment on your draft is that I have only known the user in question to be referred to by masculine pronouns (e.g. "he"), and the user has never corrected anyone who has used them. Could that be the best way to go?

I also thank you for taking this work on. I have been wanting to do something like this myself, but because I am recovering from surgery, I have had to put a lot on the back burner.

--Marie Paradox (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not want to make assumptions. I think that the gender-normative assumption of male WPians can subtly drive females away. I had initially considered "hir/zhe" or simply "her" (as is becoming the standard in some academic fields) but was convinced by some other editors that that might be seen as inflammatory. I have not asked Apostle12 directly which pronoun they prefer, so I will, somewhat clumsily perhaps, attempt to simply avoid pronouns entirely until they self-identify. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good on ya for not wanting to chase off women editors. I was just thinking that if someone used the wrong pronoun to refer to me, I would post, "Actually, I'm a she," but I should not have assumed that others would do the same. FWIW I once tried using "ze/hir" in a similar context, and nobody seemed to know what I was talking about. Avoiding pronouns altogether, while awkward, might be the best way to go. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move forward with this ASAP to prevent things from getting any more out of hand at white privilege. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that horse has already left the barn, and did so when the canvassing became an issue. At the very least, it can be said that Thucydides411 is approaching this from a much more scholarly angle, which I appreciate even if i disagree with much of the substance of their points.

I have not had a chance to look at the diffs you added yet, and might not for a couple more days. I also feel like it would be best if other voices were a part of this, and if others are not willing to sign on, then we should not proceed.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though we are no longer having major problems with the article, we are still having problems with the start page. FWIW it seems there is at least one other editor who wants to move forward with this.[2] -- Marie Paradox (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at WP:RFC/U/A asking for assistance. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just give them a source

This is why I wanted to add in Ani book, I also have issues with it, and the binary scholarship, but It utterly deals with the issues happening on the talk page. A lot of Fine Point arguments will happen. And we know what the desired political end is, To somehow make the world believe WP is ^{[dubious – discuss]}. Anyway I am sure from your research you can find at least 3 hard sources which cannot be refuted to say it is an advantage in Most societies. SA, USA, etc, can be summarized as many societies, you know that and I know that. --Inayity (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two countries out of 204 can't be summarized as "many societies".--Questionentity (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionentity, Please do not waste my time. You know as well as I do that three is not equal to two. Also, as has been pointed out to you before, we have sources that say white privilege has a global impact, felt in Africa among other places. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inayity, I hope you do not have me confused with an editor who puts her politics before her desire to help create a reliable encyclopedia. Anyway, I would not be arguing that we keep the Ani quote off the page, if I did not believe its inclusion to be original research. It would be nice though, if we could find a solution that would let us avoid ugly arguments over whether we should include a bigoted author. As for sources, I will let you know what I find. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

less-than-helpful editors

My suggestion is to acknowledge them tersely, and go on with making the article better. There seems to me to be less need to justify one's positions to those who are not active on the article, unless you're talking about the context of WP:DRN or WP:RfC/U. It can help make us think sometimes, but if we get mired in explaining things to everyone with an opinion we do not have time to make the article better. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is good advice. Thank you. I also thank you for all the hard work you have put into maintaining and improving the quality of the article. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel for you two. It must be hard. I didnt come to Wiki for this. I sincerely believe the lead is A class. It is identical to all the other good NPOV leads across Wikipedia A rated articles.--Inayity (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle12

Hi,

I wanted to notify you that I have submitted the RfC/U you assisted with drafting. There is a message at Talk:White privilege about it. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Privilege

A note to clarify recent silence: Yes, I am taking a long hiatus from White privilege. After contributing to the article for over four years I am exhausted from getting bullied. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zendaya's reversion history

It appears that you said Zendaya's mother is "white" well f.y.i white mean purity not european — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:8101:3818:3524:AF5E:9910:1205 (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]