User talk:Pier1999

Welcome!

Hello, Pier1999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to User talk:Binksternet. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources "RS"

The above is just a template welcome. I suggest you read up on WP:RS which is a [[WP:PAG|guideline]. I have long thought of it as the bedrock and foundation of content and why readers should not dismiss Wikipedia articles as they often do with comments like "Anyone can edit and put anything they want" or "You can't use Wikipedia in a college essay. It's not reliable." Unlike mainstream media, everything must be sourced with reliable sources. If not, we often get rid of it ASAP--especially in the most important articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually linked both academic articles and books and then the NY Times Pier1999 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just thought your argument could have been stronger if you had read up on that guideline, because I believe many of your sources were more higher quality and/or academic--which are among the best sources and trump mainstream media. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read up on COI

Also, I suggest you read up on WP:COI, which starts "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." When a new editor shows up very focused on a single subject with particular content they want to add/remove, it often makes other Wikipedia editors wonder if there is WP:COI. I'm not saying you do, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you are aware of the guideline. If you do have a COI, make sure to disclose it--especially before editing an article where you have a COI. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac

Clearly, you want to see content added to this article vis-a-vis Tupac's purported activist activities, but worry that your efforts may be reverted. That happens. I suggest that you develop content in your Sandbox, along with properly formated references, and only when comfortable, copy all that into the article as a new section. If it gets reverted - very possible - then start a new discussion on the Talk page, invite the person who reverted you and any others with an interest, to try to reach a consensus at the Talk page as to what can be said and what are valid references. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Activism for how to make a case for Art Activism, which I am guessing may apply to Tupac's lyrics? And for defining other actions of his as activism. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, anyway I have numerous academic sources on Tupac Shakur's activism, also on the cultural impact of his music (but I see that on his page there is already the section with the academic evaluation). I'll do as you said Pier1999 (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for his activism, befote the page reported that Tupac is a symbol of struggle and activism against injustice, but then in October someone deleted that part. Pier1999 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

against inequalities* Pier1999 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text that was added and deleted: "...and he is considered by fans to be a symbol of activism against inequality." The person who reverted it was of the opintion that the two refs provided in support did not qualify. If you intend to add to the article, I suggest doing it as a section in the body of the article - not the Lead (the top portion). David notMD (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this advice. I said quite a lot of the same here:

Talk:Tupac_Shakur#Activism

Except about the sandbox, which is a good idea for a new editor.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in reality it has been written for years that he is considered to be a symbol of activism against inequality. Then "by the fans" was added and then everything was deleted. anyway I will follow your suggestion, I will open a new section on his Wikipedia page Pier1999 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

Please remember to follow WP:BRD. If an editor reverts anything you do, discuss on talk page and try to form a WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not saying you forgot this. I just noticed that some of your work got reverted and new editors often take offense and try to revert back, which is not a good idea.--David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I'll keep it in mind. Pier1999 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tupac Shakur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academics. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac songwriter

I disagree with your reasoning and will continue to remove songwriter from the lead. Just because he wrote his own songs does not mean it was a "main occupation" of his or should be considered an occupation that he made money from. You're saying the fact other music artists don't have this in the lead of their article doesn't matter, and I also disagree. So therefore until settled by another editor, this will be considered an edit war because I will continue to remove your edits. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand one thing: but what does it change to you if it says songwriter or not? It's been months since it wrote songwriter and no one has complained. So do we need to remove songwriters from all artist pages? Why shouldn't Tupac be written? Pier1999 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before edit war, let's discuss. No need for an edit war. I want to understand why on Tupac's page there can't be written songwriter, this is written in the lead of many artists. Why can't Tupac be written? What's different for you? Tupac is considered one of the best songwriters in the history of music, Eminem considers him the greatest songwriter ever, Nas said in an interview that Tupac was better than Shakespeare. Songwriter is written in the lead of many pop stars whose lyrics are quite banal and do not have the literary complexity of Tupac's. Pier1999 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every hip hop artist I have researched that wrote their own songs does not have this in the lead. Tupac did not write songs for other artists that I know of, so it shouldn't be considered an occupation he profited from much less a main occupation of his. Eminem, Notorious B.I.G., Jay-Z, Nas etc. would all have to be changed to suit your whims of adding this in the lead on Tupac's article. That's how I see it. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriter doesn't just mean who writes songs for others, it also means who writes their own songs. For example, on the page of Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West and Lil Wayne it is written. Why shouldn't it be written in Tupac's? For example, on the page of Bono of U2 and Nina Simone, there is also an activist in the lead. Yet these are not two of their main activities, they are above all artists. Why should only Tupac's page say only rapper? When he was also a poet, activist, songwriter and actor. Pier1999 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about tantrums, so according to your reasoning we have to take away songwriter from Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West and Lil Wayne as well. Right? Pier1999 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you, following your reasoning then we should take Songwriter off the lead of all the rappers who have it because Jay-Z, Eminem and Biggie don't have that in the lead. Wikipedia should be an information site, not a personal information site. When I've edited the lead several times, the admins have praised my edits, so songwriter needs to be written. Your reasoning has nothing to do with it, so if we take away songwriters from Tupac, we have to take it away from all artists. Pier1999 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until settled, this will be an indefinite edit war. That's the end of it from my perspective. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not in the lead of the article until you added it recently. It's your opinion only. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not true, it has been in the lead of the article for at least two months and a few days ago it was removed. Check the changes Pier1999 (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac's article was created in 2005, so it is true that it was added recently. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, precisely it was added by me 26 days ago and was removed for the first time yesterday. You can check the changes to the page. Pier1999 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, it was not in the lead of the article until you added it recently. It is your opinion only. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2005. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually written before, even years ago, then it was changed several times. First it was written on the page that Tupac was a symbol of activism against inequality and then it was removed. In the past other people had written songwriters, you can go into the edits. It was actually written before, even years ago, then it was changed several times. First it was written on the page that Tupac was a symbol of activism against inequality and then it was removed. In the past other people had written songwriters, you can go into the edits. It was actually written before, even years ago, then it was changed several times. First it was written on the page that Tupac was a symbol of activism against inequality and then it was removed. In the past other people had written songwriter, you can go into the edits. Pier1999 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a disagreement on whether it belongs in the lead of the article. Simple as that. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, basically Tupac's lead is always changing, it changes every six months. While the other artists' leads always remain the same, which is a strange thing. Then there are often edit wars on the page. That said, what does it make to you if songwriter is written in the lead or not? At least that should be written, other artists have written all the occupations in the lead, even if they are secondary occupations. Pier1999 (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim I ask you to intervene because there is a user here who is making an edit war. Remove songwriter from Tupac's lead just because in his personal opinion he shouldn't be put. When in reality Tupac is considered one of the best songwriters ever Pier1999 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to tag an admin because you're making edit wars and editing a page that doesn't make any sense. According to your logic, Kendrick Lamar and Lil Wayne should also be stripped of songwriter in the lead. Pier1999 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are willfully engaging in an edit war as well. Don't put it off on me and act like you are not playing a part. That's what this entire thing is about, really. You are acting like your opinion is supreme. I have never noticed this in the lead before and have been editing this article for years, so if it was there before I am not the only one who has removed it. Others disagree with you as well. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Tupac Shakur § Previous discussion #1 on user talk page that should probably be here instead

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss article content on article talk page first

Please make sure to discuss article content on the article talk page rather than the user's talk page. You seem to be in the habit of doing that with at least four different users 10 May 2024, 20 April 2024, 18 April 2024, 24 March 2024. Other editors will not know to look at those users' talk pages and know about any discussion you have had there or on your own talk page. If the editor is behaving badly and you are warning them, then one does use the user's talk page. But really you need to start with the article talk page first--in all four of those cases.

And again, I recommend you follow my advice from before: (1) Work on other articles, or you may be accused of being a WP:SPA. I guess you don't have to do this, but I think it will help you in the long-run to understand how things work here. (2) Focus on using WP:RS to ground your arguments. A long time ago, you asked for help, and I asked you to make a table of WP:RS. I don't know why you have not done this. Is it because you don't know how to make a table? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, you're right Pier1999 (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your comment from my talk page and came here to warn you about it, only to find you have already had this warning three months ago. You are clearly enthusiastic about the subject, but it appears there is a repeated theme of this causing you to act with poor judgement. Please, remember and heed these comments rather than repeating the same mistakes. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I do my research and use sources. Everything I've cited has sources, and no one has ever changed them. Regarding the lead, we've already had a discussion with a user who called the academic section "puffery" (despite it citing the opinions of academics). Do you know what the administrators did? They banned him. Why should we continue like this? Pier1999 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is unbelievable. We've already had a discussion about that part of the lead, where the user was asked not to change it, and now I need to get consent? Basically, an absurd situation. Pier1999 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page, there was a dedicated discussion about someone who considered the page "puffery." It was pointed out to him that the sources were accurate and cited expert opinions. The page was closed, and then when it was reopened, he came back. He made changes without following the rules and was banned. Pier1999 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations -- how to do them 'automatically'

I improved the citation you added here. I noticed it because the citation bot came in and added a two fields--article title and article date. If you have a link to an article, you can usually get a pretty good citation by using the "automatic" option for the "add a citation" selection of Visual editor toolbar. Are you using the Visual Editor (Visual Editor help)? Doing the automatic citation is described here. (The keyboard shortcut on Windows for adding a citation is holding down these three keys simultaneously: CTRL-SHIFT-K.) I used the "automatic" citation to make the better reference that added the author's last name, author's first name, date of the article, and access date without having to copy and paste or enter any of the data by hand. Please let me know if you are able to use the "automatic" citation. It simplifies and can really speed up the tedious work of finding all the fields of a proper citation. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use ^[1] Pier1999 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Talk:Tupac Shakur, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Anyone is entitled to edit Wikipedia regardless of their academic credentials or knowledge of a subject, provided they do so within policy. Your expertise in a particular topic grants you no special privileges when editing; and bringing it up as a bludgeon in talk page discussions can constitute ownership. Please stop, and if you find yourself this strongly attached to an article, consider voluntarily choosing to edit other topic areas instead. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do that, I just misspoke. How can I go back to edit the page? I promise I will give my input and not write those things again. Pier1999 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur

I've fully protected the article. Go directly to WP:DR and stop calling other editors who disagree with you vandals. This is a content dispute, and I'll look into your conduct and that of others when I have a chance to try to unravel it all, but the way you're all approaching the topic is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's already happened. It's an eight-day-old discussion; the administrator had already closed the page. Have you read that it's an old discussion? Pier1999 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your advice, but the administrator had already closed the page for this and had already reviewed our behavior. As for the content dispute, he wrote to that user not to edit the page without consent. However, I will write to that section. The discussion is old; the page had already been closed and then reopened. Pier1999 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's me; and I temporarily protected the page due to a variety of both content and conduct issues, including from you. The protection naturally expired. That's what happens. You'll recall that I did not tell anyone "not to edit the page without consent" -- in fact, I explicitly warned *you* that you "do not have any authority to tell someone that they may not edit a page without your consent." I told a different user to not make undiscussed removals of sourced content without discussion or consensus. That's not the same thing as "do not edit without consent." Please don't misrepresent my actions, particularly to other administrators. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just misspelled it. However, I had quoted what you wrote in another discussion. Now what am I supposed to do anyway? Should I necessarily go to that section on disputes and just wait for the page to reopen after 10 days and see what happens? Pier1999 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article." You wrote also this Pier1999 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote this to that guy who always removes everything. Pier1999 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard was inappropriate and disruptive. You can remove a thread at a Talk page you began but only if no one else has responded. Your comment at my Talk page is not a justification for the removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, I will read the regulations more carefully then. Pier1999 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistently implementing your preferred version

Can you pls read over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best you don't get blocked before you have the ability to discuss the changes with other individuals. Moxy🍁 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to new data, which is also cited in religion in Norway, 64% of Norwegians are members of the Lutheran Church. Pier1999 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Pier1999 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all the pages of European countries where religion is mentioned, you have cited sociological studies from important organizations that directly asked the adult population about their religion. Only on this page do you use the numbers of affiliates to the Church of Norway, which indicate nothing; the majority of these could very well be atheists today but have sacraments like baptism. Pier1999 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on Adolf Hitler?

What are your thoughts on Adolf Hitler. Do you hate him or like him? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a leftist, I hate him. Why? Pier1999 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about your political beliefs. Don't know why lol HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a leftist, atheist, and progressive. However, I don't support any particular party; during elections, I vote for the least bad option. Regarding international politics, I'm against American imperialism and that of its allies, but also against Russia. Pier1999 (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of strong secularism. In the past, I used to define myself as a democratic socialist or social democrat. Pier1999 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic socialist, social Democrat, what's next, anarcho-capitalist? Your political evolution, it's like watching a reality TV show, but with more manifestos and fewer spray tans HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't define myself as anything now. Just as someone on the left and a free thinker. I don't follow any religion or ideology. Are you on the left or the right? Pier1999 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im half Jewish, but I don't care about the middle east at all. Black people need to control their own economy and political destiny. I'm not Democrat. I'm not republican, and I don't consider myself American. Establishment of a separate nation for black people within the United States etc. black power. Not racist against whites they can say white power but black power for me George Floyd is the new MLK and Malcom X HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't you English? Pier1999 (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I live in England, but im also Mixed race. That's why I said I'm half Jewish, not fully. And I don't care about my country at all tbh, African American culture and hip hop culture is cooler HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But races don't exist. Ethnicities exist, we all belong to the human race. Pier1999 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought race and ethnicity was the same thing HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning at Tupac Shakur

Several editors have asked you stop dominating the RFC. You really need to read WP:BLUDGEONING. You've given your opinion so step away and let the RFC come to its natural conclusion. Other editors are not obligated to satisfy you. Commenting over and over isn't helpful and it's not going to change anyone's mind. In fact, it's likely to have the opposite effect and discourage comment. Nemov (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I write like this. I never write just one comment; I should write everything in a single comment. I know. Pier1999 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tupac Shakur. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am saving the page from an edit war. Essentially, Humans wants to change the lead without sources. Pier1999 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see point 2 above. As noted in the final paragraph, there are other remedies open to you if discussion does not work. But you really need to make sure you don't put yourself in a position where you could fall foul of WP:BOOMERANG. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans and I have just clarified. There is no more edit war. He wrote to me, and we clarified things. I'm telling you just to let you know. Pier1999 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No religion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ link

[1] ^ link

[1]