Jump to content

User talk:PeterTheFourth/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Thanks!

Hey! I just wanted to say thanks for your work on the Zak Smith debacle and doing the sock puppet investigation. That was incredibly crazy-making arguing against like three of the guy O_O I kinda had some culture shock in those conversations from the expectation to talk about such emotional things dispassionatly and "objectivitely." I'm probably just feeling some leftover ick from Z's argument style, who knows? I figure I just don't have the stomach for that kind of arguing, so I really appreciate seeing you and other good people are capable at it. I just wanted to say I appreciate what you do! Acidbleu (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Acidbleu: No worries dude(tte?), thank you so much for your work on it. Wikipedia can be very weird, and abusers like Zak Smith can go rampant pretending their own emotions and feelings are 'objective' and disparaging the contributions of other people. I'm glad that we ultimately didn't let that happen. I don't think Wikipedia ultimately has the best culture, although I have seen some people work to make it better which I'm happy about. Thank you for leaving such a nice note as well, you've made my day. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Gabrielle Upton

Hi, you tagged Gabrielle Upton with a COI notice [1], but didn't make any entry on the talk page as to the problematic edits. I had a look at the article & it is not apparent to me where your concerns arise from. While she was mentioned in the herald article on Melanie Gibbons, neither the IP concerned 203.13.67.10 nor others in that range appear to have contributed to the article. Let me know if you think there is some reason the COI tag should be left on the article. Find bruce (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Find bruce: Hi. Where does that IP come from? The article mentions edits made from parliament house to the article over a number of years, I don't think the article or myself mentioned that IP. I am concerned about the repeated pattern of editing from parliament. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Like you I am concerned about the questionable reliability of edits originating from parliament. The SMH article identified specific edits to Melanie Gibbons, the page history of which confirms the IP address - see Talk:Melanie Gibbons#COI editing for the relevant edits. User talk:203.13.67.10 identifies this IP as registered to the Parliament. As far as I can tell all of the IP addresses in the range, 203.13.67.* are registered to the Parliament. In following the trail I have identified edits being made to
The approach I have been taking is to (1) revert the edits unless they are entirely non-controversial (2) tag the talk page using Template:Connected contributor & (3) post a message on the contributors talk page, such as User talk:203.13.67.11, on the grounds that the potential for embarrassment probably outweighs any benefit of trying to make WP a puff piece. Happy to play whack a mole with the article on Ms Upton, but I couldn't find any problematic edits. Find bruce (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Fair enough. The article mentioned removals of information that portrayed Upton in a negative light - if there are none of these that were problematic (e.g. just removing unsourced stuff?) then all's well. I trust your decision on whether or not the tag should stay. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin

Hello, if you read the article white nigger, you should quickly realize it does not describe any use Benjamin could have been intending. He is clearly not:

  • Speaking as a black man referring to white people who do menial labor
  • Speaking about Irish immigrants in the 19th century
  • Referring to white activists in the American Civil Rights movement
  • Referring to French Canadians
  • Referring to Irish Catholics during The Troubles
  • Making a comment about Richard Francis Burton

Therefore, it is neither appropriate nor useful to link the term. Also, it is generally frowned upon to put links inside direct quotes (although it is seen in lots of places). Cheers and happy editing. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Why have you chosen to put this comment here instead of on the article talk page? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point, I'll add my two cents there as well. --SVTCobra (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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. If you have questions, please contact me.

ST47 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

While I understand your point about there being no convictions about the attack on Ngo, many people, including myself, have seen videos on the local news channels that shows him being assaulted. I'm in the Northwest and different videos showing a mob following him and terrorizing him were shown on the news for days. He didn't even try to defend himself against the crowd. I don't have a link to a video but the fact that random people were punching him is borne out by videos showing the assault. There are photos of his injuries that were taken at the hospital and shown on the news. I think they'd be easy to find online.

I don't think one needs to agree with him politically to accept that he was a victim of crowd violence. There are people who falsely cry "victim" but in his case, his assault was documented. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't disagree that Ngo was assaulted - I think that we should still use allegedly here, as that seems to be what is recommended by WP:BLPCRIME. If, in the future, the identities of the anti-fascist protesters who did attack Ngo were discovered we would definitely be using allegedly. There's also the possibility that the videos were edited in some way to remove context (ie maybe Ngo pushed somebody, it devolved, etc.) Am I being too finicky? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo talk page

I don't care if you've read my comments, but you appear not to have read the source you're discussing. Either way, your argument with Galestar is now far removed from the goal of improving the article. This Sorry, are you Galestar? I'm responding to a very specific thing he quoted, not something you quoted, and it's honestly kind of annoying to have the goal posts moved like this is not appropriate to post on an article talk page. The article talk page is not there for you to argue one specific other editor. If you must argue, move it to one or another or your talk pages. I know that by getting involved I've now partially responsible for the situation, so I won't comment on it again. Also, I apologize that my initial response was unclear, and rude. That was not the correct way to approach the situation, I'm sorry. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Apology accepted - no big deal, nobody's perfect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alec Holowka

I think we should not restore that BLP violating content on the talk.-- Deepfriedokra 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP if you believe that discussing on talk whether or not to mention the rape accusations against Alec Holowka, or linking to this tweet, violates our policies on biographies of living people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I had no idea that Twitter is a reliable source suitable for allegations. I thought BLP applied in talk pages.-- Deepfriedokra 01:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: I sincerely don't know how to address what is either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level. It's beyond the level of effort I want to put in today. If you find this confusing, apply yourself more. I'm not going to help you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've opened an AE thread: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PeterTheFourth. --Pudeo (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop by...

...to say Illegitimi non carborundum. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate that a lot. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you to everyone who had kind or supportive words for me here and elsewhere. It's not something you had to do or that I am in any way owed, it was very nice, and I appreciated it a lot. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterTheFourth/Archive_2&oldid=1048401613"