User talk:Tol/Archives/2021/04
 | Do not edit this page; it is an archive of past discussions. If you would like to start a new discussion or continue a previous one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear @Tol: , Hello, I hope this email is finding you well in these hard times. Big Mori is someone who, in the youngest age possible, was able to become the president of WABBA International, a fitness organization around the world. He is an international body building champion, with this age he was able to get a bunch of medals from international competitions. He follows his fitness goal with education and integrity and has even written a few books and is in the worlds of making another one. It's been a few years since he is a professional singer, releasing a bunch of tracks, music videos, and is available on all platforms around the world, internationally. With the sanctions happening in Iran and the hardship people must endure to achieve their goals, he was able to become successful and be a great motivator and inspiration and role model for the young people of the world. A bunch of interviews have been done with Big Mori, on many platforms such as tv shows, newspapers, magazines, social medias, radio which have been all linked in the references at the bottom of his wikipedia page, I hope after reading this message will allow his wikipedia page to be published . please tell me what I can do to avoid this deletion. Thank you for the time you have put into giving us your attention And Thank you from the bottom of my heart.P@yam (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Payamkermanshahi: Thank you for sending me a message. I had nominated the article for speedy deletion, which provides for uncontroversial deletions where consensus does not need to be reached. It seems that Big Mori may be notable — and, as nobody has responded to the speedy deletion tag after a few days, it seems that nobody wants to make the decision of either deleting it or removing the speedy deletion tag. As such, I have removed the tag. However, the article still requires substantial cleanup; I will also try to help with that. Sincerely, Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tol: I very appreciate you, and i really need to your aid.i'm waiting here your suggestions, every time possible for you. P@yam (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Just information
[edit]I have every reason to believe you were trying to be helpful here. I just wanted to let you know that directing veteran users (and a former admin) around the project might seem presumptuous. It's true that there are nooks and crannies around Wikipedia that I've never encountered but it's always best to err on the side of caution. Tiderolls 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tide rolls: Thanks for the note; I wasn't aware that he was an experienced user. Given the blocked user's obvious vandalism, I felt it may be helpful to leave a note. And as for nooks and crannies, I recently found set index articles, which are lists of things with similar names (but not disambiguation pages)! Thanks, Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 19:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Title of Shooting of Rekia Boyd
[edit]That innocent girl was murdered. All too often i see articles of victims of police murders not calling it what it is: Murder. "Shooting of" is weird and dodgy, purposely avoiding calling it what it really is. I dont know how to change wikipedia article titles so can you please do it for me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karma x irelia (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Karma x irelia: Thank you for leaving a message. The article titles policy states that good titles should be neutral; there is also a neutral point of view policy. In this case, Dante Servin was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. While I agree that this verdict is highly questionable, there is a living persons policy with a section on people accused of crime which states that
a living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law
. Changing the article title would imply that Servin murdered Boyd, which would be neither neutral or compliant with policy. As such, I will not move the article for you. However, I can point you to the requested moves process, where you can propose that the article be moved. The instructions on requesting a move are here. Sincerely, Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The entire natural born citizen article on wikipedia article talks about how natural born citizens have to be born in the usa or to usa parents. Lafayete is indeed an obvious example of the fact that this is false. However, because of how small that note is: it is not obvious. Therefore, I do not believe it goes against any "style" to point out that it should be noted, since the entire wikipedia article contradicts that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @151.196.126.78: In your edit (diff #1019200159), you used
It should be noted that
, which is against MOS:EDITORIAL, part of the manual of style. You also repeated what the quote and preceding text said — that Lafayette wasFrench-born
, but he and his male heirs weretaken to be natural born Citizens
. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)- so "natural born citizens" means french-born? the entire premise is that the united states said that people are not "born into servitude." or "born into french etc" it literally said "all men are created with liberty under the natural rights of man and any government that threatens this right should be altered or abolished." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to understand your point. The quote and preceding text clearly stated that although Lafayette was French-born, he was given natural-born status. The sentence which you added was unnecessary and against the Manual of Style. Tol | Talk | Contribs 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- the point there is that lafayete wasn't "given" natural citizenship. in the united states, you aren't "given" something that you have naturally. that's why i was trying to draw attention to the fact that the founding assembly stated that all of mankind has an equal station and inalienable natural right to liberty under nature's god. it's in the first paragraph of when the country was announced: at the top of the declaration of independence. i think lafayette's case might be a good example for why you can't be "given" your natural right, since it had nothing to do with parents, landmarks, or lineage... and yet a "natural born citizen" was found to exist. sorry if it took so long to explain.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)--151.196.126.78 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I understand that you were trying to draw attention to this and emphasise that even though Lafayette was given natural born citizenship, he was not born in the country. However, Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view. Others may disagree with you, although it may seem clear to you that Lafayette's case is ridiculous. If you can find consensus among reliable sources that support your point, you can add those sources' opinions. Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- huh? i said exactly the opposite of that. i said that lafayette's case may be a good example (of why citizenship was found to have nothing to do with birthrights, landmarks, or birth certificates) and i added emphasis to point this out, since it contradicts the entire nature of an otherwise fairly bias article. are you projecting yourself onto me or did you misread what i said? --151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I think I may have misunderstood. It still remains that you should not add emphasis (see MOS:EDITORIAL and WP:NPOV), but if you can find reliable sources to support your assertions, go ahead and add information. Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- i think the maryland assembly back in the 1700s is reliable enough. i'll leave that as-is. it's the wording of "given" that troubles me in the section about lafayette. that's why i thought maybe emphasis would counter the bias. the assembly didn't "give" citizenship. that implies that lafayette had no natural right to citizenship. lafayette already had a natural right. the assembly just decided that lafayette was indeed a natural born citizen, to protect against any dispute. do you think it would be ok to reword "given" into "decided that" or "found that," so that the section of lafayette does not imply that there was no natural right to be a natural born citizen?--151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that that edit would be fine (see WP:BRD — if somebody reverts this, discuss it with him or her). However, I do not believe that Lafayette had a
natural right to be a natural born citizen
; he was born in France to French parents, and so would not have any birthright citizenship. Also, please indent your replies. Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)- constant indentations make talk harder to read between two parties, since everything gets squished and goes to one side of the screen, and i'm not sure how to do those. i can start doing that for you if you tell me how. i think that your opinion about not having a natural right to be a natural born is yours, but nothing like that was said in the assembly. the reason my opinion on that differs, is because the declaration of independence said that mankind is created equal in nature, that we are free from governments, and that liberty is our natural right. the united states is the only country i know that wrote against birthright citizenship and government control over people from birth, so i'd like to defend the idea where i can. i understand that birth certificates were added in the 1920s from foreign policies, and that they are popular with some who grew up being taught that nobody is equal according to birth, or only some are, but i would like defend the core of the united states when i can. as neutrally as possible. EDIT: sorry i keep forgetting to sign. this is weird.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- You indent by adding colons (
:) before your comment, one more colon than the previous comment. Your opinion is valid; however, Wikipedia is written neutrally. If you can find that most reliable sources support your opinion, you can add that, but should be clear to label it as an opinion and attribute it to the source (with a citation). Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)- indentation like this? the only reliable source that i have is the direct statements by the founding members of the united states on the declaration of independence, but people generally erase or discount them as statements that are not legal to the united states. it, is frustrating. the lafayette decision is the only thing i've seen more recently that contradicts all the birthright and bloodline stuff that's become popular in recent history. the stuff on wikipedia seems very bias and heavy-handed in that respect. i'm practically thinking to just ignore the website. thanks for your help.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- No problem; the indentation is perfect. Thank you for the discussion. Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- indentation like this? the only reliable source that i have is the direct statements by the founding members of the united states on the declaration of independence, but people generally erase or discount them as statements that are not legal to the united states. it, is frustrating. the lafayette decision is the only thing i've seen more recently that contradicts all the birthright and bloodline stuff that's become popular in recent history. the stuff on wikipedia seems very bias and heavy-handed in that respect. i'm practically thinking to just ignore the website. thanks for your help.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- You indent by adding colons (
- constant indentations make talk harder to read between two parties, since everything gets squished and goes to one side of the screen, and i'm not sure how to do those. i can start doing that for you if you tell me how. i think that your opinion about not having a natural right to be a natural born is yours, but nothing like that was said in the assembly. the reason my opinion on that differs, is because the declaration of independence said that mankind is created equal in nature, that we are free from governments, and that liberty is our natural right. the united states is the only country i know that wrote against birthright citizenship and government control over people from birth, so i'd like to defend the idea where i can. i understand that birth certificates were added in the 1920s from foreign policies, and that they are popular with some who grew up being taught that nobody is equal according to birth, or only some are, but i would like defend the core of the united states when i can. as neutrally as possible. EDIT: sorry i keep forgetting to sign. this is weird.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that that edit would be fine (see WP:BRD — if somebody reverts this, discuss it with him or her). However, I do not believe that Lafayette had a
- i think the maryland assembly back in the 1700s is reliable enough. i'll leave that as-is. it's the wording of "given" that troubles me in the section about lafayette. that's why i thought maybe emphasis would counter the bias. the assembly didn't "give" citizenship. that implies that lafayette had no natural right to citizenship. lafayette already had a natural right. the assembly just decided that lafayette was indeed a natural born citizen, to protect against any dispute. do you think it would be ok to reword "given" into "decided that" or "found that," so that the section of lafayette does not imply that there was no natural right to be a natural born citizen?--151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I think I may have misunderstood. It still remains that you should not add emphasis (see MOS:EDITORIAL and WP:NPOV), but if you can find reliable sources to support your assertions, go ahead and add information. Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- huh? i said exactly the opposite of that. i said that lafayette's case may be a good example (of why citizenship was found to have nothing to do with birthrights, landmarks, or birth certificates) and i added emphasis to point this out, since it contradicts the entire nature of an otherwise fairly bias article. are you projecting yourself onto me or did you misread what i said? --151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I understand that you were trying to draw attention to this and emphasise that even though Lafayette was given natural born citizenship, he was not born in the country. However, Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view. Others may disagree with you, although it may seem clear to you that Lafayette's case is ridiculous. If you can find consensus among reliable sources that support your point, you can add those sources' opinions. Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- the point there is that lafayete wasn't "given" natural citizenship. in the united states, you aren't "given" something that you have naturally. that's why i was trying to draw attention to the fact that the founding assembly stated that all of mankind has an equal station and inalienable natural right to liberty under nature's god. it's in the first paragraph of when the country was announced: at the top of the declaration of independence. i think lafayette's case might be a good example for why you can't be "given" your natural right, since it had nothing to do with parents, landmarks, or lineage... and yet a "natural born citizen" was found to exist. sorry if it took so long to explain.--151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)--151.196.126.78 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to understand your point. The quote and preceding text clearly stated that although Lafayette was French-born, he was given natural-born status. The sentence which you added was unnecessary and against the Manual of Style. Tol | Talk | Contribs 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- so "natural born citizens" means french-born? the entire premise is that the united states said that people are not "born into servitude." or "born into french etc" it literally said "all men are created with liberty under the natural rights of man and any government that threatens this right should be altered or abolished." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Minor edits by DanielaLarsen25
[edit]Hi Tol,
I have been wrongly marking edits as miner when they should be major. I am sorry I had not checked my messages until late. So, should I go back and mark them as "major/Keep an eye on this page"? How do I go back in, please? Thank you.
DanielaLarsen25 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine; I have already made edits to note that your edits were not minor. You cannot change edits that you have already made. Just be more careful with minor edits in the future; thank you! Tol | Talk | Contribs 23:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Since 2004 there has been so many changes in KFLOLP that it doesn't represent the current operation, at all.
None of the accusations are towards any board members, or the current station broadcasts.
The "Controversy" section is completely irrelevant, and perhaps inflammatory statements.
The sources don't represent the current leadership, owners, board, format, or anything about it.
That KFLOLP does not exist. It was a southern gospel station.
Remove the controversy section, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.122.234 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please see the notability policy section "Notability is not temporary". Information should not be removed only because it is old. It's still related to the station, albeit to an older version of it. The section has been removed by another editor; I don't plan to restore it again unless a larger history section is written (as focusing on a single controversy section is not very neutral). Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)