User talk:White whirlwind/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 11:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

[insert thumbs up emoji here].  White Whirlwind  咨  06:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Waley

Hello. You wrote,after removing my edit regarding Waley's 'Monkey',that they were "Unsourced assertions".If you read the Introduction to 'Monkey',by the Author himself,(which is why I quoted him,in the article),the "Source" was Waley himself;the " assertions" were his own. Heath St John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heath St John (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your punctuation is nonsensical and your contributions are hard to understand. The content you added made little sense, cited no source (page number, etc.) and didn't add anything of value to the article. Thus I reverted it.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Chinese literature

Thank you for all your contributions to the coverage of Chinese literature, and China-related topics in general, on Wikipedia – for articles such as Zuo zhuan and Fu (poetry). Be proud of yourself, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: thanks very much.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1417 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your problematic editing

You clearly didn't understand why I made the edit I did at Dred Scott v. Sanford. You undid it without explaining why, several times. In one edit summary you said I should take it to talk, though you have ignored the talk page entirely yourself. And then you left an edit summary which you intended to be patronising, when you made an edit which was equivalent in intent to the one I'd made. If you'd only comprehended the (very easy to understand) reason I'd made the edit, you wouldn't have needed to waste those couple of days dicking around. From what I see above, your attitude is deeply unpleasant. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia but I don't think that is why you are editing, is it? Kapanar (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kapanar: Each of my three reverts—1, 2, and 3—had explanations in their edit summaries. If you cannot or will not read others' explanations and treat other editors with civility in language (see WP:CIVIL), Wikipedia editing may not be for you. You started a section on the talk page but didn't tag any of the reverters to make plain that you'd done so. That is a common courtesy here, since, unlike you, many non-neophyte editors have large watchlists and can easily miss a new section. Try not to take things personally.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS

Your recent edits to Jerry Sloan introduced a few MOS formatting errors without an explanation. You unlinked the first reference to "Chicago Bulls". Per MOS:NICKNAME, a hypocorism like "Jerry" is considered obvious and is generally not represented. Common nicknames, esp. redirects like "the Original Bull", are typically bolded in the lead. Finally, MOS:NICKNAMETHE advises that a leading "the" in a nickname is not capitalized. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. Go ahead and fix them.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What a phenomenally arrogant response that was. If you make mistakes, you should fix them. Breezily instructing the person who pointed out your failings to go fix them up for you is something disgusting to see. Kapanar (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kapanar: You messed up the formatting on this section — please use care and do not alter the formatting of other editors' talk pages. Moreover, it is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia to assume other editors' good faith (WP:AGF), and the use of civil language is one of our core pillars here (WP:CIVIL). Language like "dicking" and calling people's attitudes "phenomenally arrogant" is not appropriate. If that's a problem for you, I recommend another hobby. Questioning motivations—"I don't think that is why you are editing, is it?"—violates both AGF and our rule against personal attacks (WP:PERSONAL). Now, regarding the above edit—which you had zero involvement with and seem compelled to comment on for some unknown reason—involved a handful of minor formatting edits to an article that Bagumba had already fixed by the time I saw his comments and went to fix them myself. Don't misinterpret laconic style for curtness.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Your signature?...

has no links in it. Seriously - just go to any talk page where you've signed and your User talk and contributions should be linked? - but aren't. Might want to fix that.... Shearonink (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Strange, it used to have the links in them. I'll fix that.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The 咨 is a functional link to my talk page on the signature preview in my Preferences tab, dunno why it doesn't work in the main space.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I just removed the talk link for simplicity's sake, the main one is working.  White Whirlwind  00:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Shijing Translation

I don't understand how you can justify immediately deleting the brief addition I made to the "Classic of Poetry" page to include my recent translation. I repeat here the objection I made on the page which seemed to be the place to raise such objections, which led to a response asking me to address you directly here:

On 1 Aug 2020, Cambridge Scholars Publishing published my translation of the Chinese "Book of Odes" (Shijing), one of the earliest literary monuments in any living language. This is, as far as I know, the first new translation since the 1950s; when I published a small selection of the translations in 2006 one Chinese reviewer was kind enough to write "This is the only readable translation I have found, certainly the only one that makes these ancient poems enjoyable to read". My book has the unique feature that alongside the English versions, it spells out alphabetically the poems as they sounded in the original Old Chinese, restoring the rhyming and other sound-play which are lost if the words are read as modern Chinese. Accordingly, it seemed reasonable to add a one-line reference to my book to the list of translations in the Wikipedia article "Classic_of_Poetry", so that Wikipedia users who are interested could discover my book's existence and perhaps judge it for themselves. I did this on 24 August 2020; seven hours later, another Wikipedia user undid my insertion, with the comment "it's not from a major press, so let's wait awhile and see how it's received before adding it". This to me is not a reasonable excuse for suppressing a citation of the book; if it is not listed within the Wikipedia article on the Chinese original, it will have little chance of being "received". I am not sure about the significance of the status of the publisher, but in any case, after everything that has happened to the British publishing industry in recent decades, it would be hard to argue that CSP is not a major press, unless "major" is code for "American": CSP seems to be one of the foremost independent British academic publishers still standing. I request that my revision to the article "Classic_of_Poetry" is reinstated. Dick G. Hatch (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dick G. Hatch: Let me briefly answer your points.

• First, there have been new Shijing translations since the 1950s, including a few in English or joint Mandarin/English. Their quality is not very good, as far as I've seen.
• Second, the list of translations at Classic of Poetry is not a "list of translations", it is a "list of notable translations"—that's why the section's title is "Notable Translations". Your translation may be good or it may be bad: I personally have no idea, though I hope it is good. Regardless of its quality, it is most certainly not notable, at least not yet. If it receives significant attention in the field and relevant literature, then I would certainly be happy to add it at such time. This has long been a problem in Chinese classic texts articles (especially the I Ching–Yi jing), where a plethora of translations gradually builds up in the article when in reality few of them are worth mentioning.
• Third, I did not suppress a citation to your book, I removed a listing of your book as a "Notable Translation" of the Shijing, which it most certainly is not, at least not at present (see #2 above). And "major press" is not code for "American press", it simply means "major press": Cambridge University Press is a major press, Cambridge Scholars Publishing is not.

None of this is personal, it's just the usual practice we've followed. Hopefully your book makes good inroads and is well received.  White Whirlwind  07:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

So is Cambridge Univ. Press still a genuinely independent British operation, rather than a British façade on an essentially American set-up, as Oxford University Press has been since the Net Book Agreement was overthrown? Otherwise my point stands. Perhaps C.U.P. is an exception; there aren't many left.Dick G. Hatch (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible creation of pages regarding the U.S. Supreme Court

Hi there! You may not be the right person to talk to, but I wanted to ask your opinion on the possible creation of pages for the Supreme Court's so-called 'shadow docket' and for Purcell v. Gonzalez. There seems to be some discussion in Supreme Court watchers for these topics and I was wondering if you felt that it would be worth creating pages for them. Or if you feel that they don't warrant pages of their own, under which page to nestle information for them. Please don't take this message as a request for you to create them; I'm sure that you have other projects that are far more deserving of your time. Rather, I was wondering if you'd recommend that they are worth creating articles for.

Sdrqaz (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: That's an interesting question. The standard for judging whether something deserves an article is WP:NOTABILITY. I'm guessing that there are good reliable sources about the shadow docket that have been published. See what you can find.  White Whirlwind  20:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Thank you for your advice and your prompt reply. I'll look more carefully into the subject before I decide whether it merits an article.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits to Ukiyo-e

Hiya - just wanted to pop in and say thank you for your recent edit to Ukiyo-e, even if it was just a little one. I'm on a bit of a mission at the minute to get editors to use Template:lang tags more in their edits, so I wanted to ask that next time - or whenever you edit an article that's got bits of it (placenames, people names, vocabulary) that aren't English - even if the term doesn't need italicising (see the template parameters), but isn't English - if you would consider using a language tag instead of just italics. Though the output looks basically the same to us, for users with screenreaders, it means the words get pronounced correctly. My parents' SatNav manages to butcher Calais, and we literally live just over the pond from France - so you can imagine the difficulty a screenreader might have in pronouncing Japanese(!). Cheers! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Thanks for the note, your concern is certainly valid and I'll try to do better with {{lang}} tags in the future. I've had some concerns with them in the past because in some instances some of the various templates that produce them have done strange things to the font of the text in which they're used, and this made articles that were very unsightly. But if these have been fixed, then I have no cause for concern.  White Whirlwind  23:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the fonts thing - this actually came up with another editor the other day! I think on certain browsers, the font does display differently - I know on my desktop, it shows up differently, whereas on laptop, it renders the same as the rest of the text. They do make some articles look a little unsightly, but in the grand scheme of things, I'd say it's a net benefit. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Oh, it's still happening? Then I'm afraid I must decline your request, as I disagree on the net benefit calculus. Honestly, though, I would think that it would be a relatively simple fix for the template editors.  White Whirlwind  00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, even if it displays ugly, those with sight loss will at least be able to read the article. But I'll bring it up on the Template's Talk page, and see if something can't be put into the page and/or MOS:ACCESS. Someone must know why it happens. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I've found a few clues. It seems as though the {{lang}} template specifies language content, but not the font it displays in; this is left up to the user's own browser. In this sense, it means that Wikipedia is not only accessible for users with screenreaders, but is also entirely backwards-compatible - instead of specifying a font that an outdated browser may not have, it leaves it up to the browser to pick one, ensuring that the text will still display correctly based upon what the browser has installed.

There *are* some templates, such as {{script/hebrew}}, but these are, it should be emphasised, not interchangeable with {{lang}}. From the Template's own page:

This template only marks a string as Hebrew script, not as Hebrew language. Therefore, it is not appropriate for Hebrew text, which should be marked instead like this: {{Lang-he|‹Hebrew language string›}}. For entire paragraphs in Hebrew, please use

‹Hebrew language string›

...Please mark all Hebrew script with either {{Lang-he}} if the text is in Hebrew, or with {{{1}}}‎.

I have to say I don't entirely know why this template exists, because I can't really think of a scenario where it would be used, but it makes clear that it'll display it pretty, but it won't read it out as Hebrew text - where MOS:ACCESS rules that all foreign language text should be encoded correctly.

Digging into {{lang}}'s Talk page archives, I found [undefined Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help)_template_should_not_be_used_with_foreign_words? this thread:]

{{lang}} should never be used in any of the cs1|2 citation-template parameters listed here. Otherwise, I don't know of any other places where non-English text should not be wrapped in {{lang}}...—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And this thread brings up the issue of romanised Arabic text being rendered in a strange font as a commons.css issue; though I'm unclear on what exactly that means, from context it seems to be something you can alter in your own browser, personally:

Probably the Arabic text has a different font because your browser is rendering text that is marked as Arabic (enclosed in a HTML tag with the attribute lang="ar") in a font appropriate for the Arabic script, even though the characters are actually from the Latin alphabet. I've seen a similar problem, Japanese romanization tagged with lang="ja" or lang="ja-Latn" being rendered in a font appropriate for Japanese script. (I think it makes the Latin characters extra wide.) Adding a script code (lang=ar-Latn) and putting a CSS rule like [lang*="Latn"] {font-family: inherit;} (language attribute includes "Latn") or [lang$="Latn"] {font-family: inherit;} (language attribute ends with "Latn") in your common.css should override the browser's font rules and force the text to render in the font of the surrounding paragraph. — Eru·tuon 20:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

None of these seem to be ideal or overarching all-users-inclusive solutions, but I should emphasise that MOS:ACCESS does mandate all foreign langauge text to be enclosed in language tags. I'm sorry if this seems to be coming down a little hard; but it's literally in the manual of style. Anything else would be in violation of that. I'll bring up the fonts issue in a new thread on the Talk page, seeing as there's not one that ideally hits the mark there currently, but for the time being, it is what it is, I guess. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Yes, your point about the MOS is a good one.  White Whirlwind  20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So I did some asking around, and I actually got an answer that probably clears up the issue:

"Japanese is not normally normally written using Latn script. Telling {{lang}} that this Japanese is written with Latn script tells my browser to use a Latn-specific font (such cases are probably better handled as romanizations so {{transl}} would be a better choice:

for lang ja ← for lang ja

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors interested in having their own styles for what should be lang marked text should employ personal CSS as described at Template:Lang#Applying styles. --Izno (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)"

So it seems that you can apply your own personal CSS on Wikipedia to fix the issue, but also that transliterations to Latin script should actually be handled by {{transl}}, rather than {{lang}}. The more you know!

It does seem peculiar to me, though - there is mention of the issues surrounding transliteration on the lang template's article, but I wonder if it shouldn't be further emphasised that for transliteration to Latin script, {{transl} should be used in place of {{lang|[X]-Latn, y'know? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Good to know. I'll try to use {{transl}} more often.  White Whirlwind  21:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Passover

There have been numerous edits by Jaredscribe recently and while I was tracking down a problem edit, I made two discoveries. One is that this editor made the problem edit. The other is that the editor has been blocked in the past, so it's possible someone needs to look at the person's edits to make sure they're all right. I wouldn't know myself, and my fixes to the problem edits I did see may be all right or they may not. I didn't see anyone who was watching the article so I'm just contacting some people who have made recent edits.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I merely fixed a quote template and have never made any other edits to that page, so I'm not familiar with what you're referencing.  White Whirlwind  01:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Cai Lun

Hi White whirlwind, I hope this message finds you well. There aren't a lot of WP editors in Chinese history nowadays, but I'm familiar with your work, particularly on Zhuangzi. I've been preparing Cai Lun for FAC for some time now and I'm wondering if you might be able to be able to give me any feedback on the article. Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I'll take a close look at it. I glanced over it last night, and most of the changes look to involve formatting and cleaning up the prose.  White Whirlwind  03:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, do you think you'll get a chance to do so? No worries if not—I think I'm going to request a copy edit at GOCE, but any comments from yourself would still be welcome, of course. Aza24 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Thanks for reminding me, I'll try to do it this weekend. Getting input from other editors will undoubtedly help, too.  White Whirlwind  00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Check out the talk page over there.  White Whirlwind  02:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

File:K.C. Hsiao.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:K.C. Hsiao.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Antitrust law edit

(moved here by WW) Hello White whirlwind, You recently reverted an edit I made on the "US antitrust law" page. All you said was that my contribution to why antitrust law is strongly debated wasn't right, but you haven't backed it up with any sources or anything. I'm just trying to understand why I was "wrong" because to my understanding, most laws are debated because of differences in interpretation, which can rise from vague wording. I do understand that you have a Judis Doctor degree, so you must have more experience/knowledge, so if you could explain a better answer to me that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSellers2 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@JSellers2: You added a sentence to the lead saying that the main reason antitrust laws are strongly debated is because they are "vague and difficult to define". You supported this assertion with a citation to a 1997 article in a communications law journal. I reverted that edit because, given my familiarity with the subject, I was certain that it could not be correct. The vagueness of the antitrust statutes' language plays a role in antitrust law debates, but it is by no means the main reason for their debatability.

An investigation proved my suspicions correct. As far as I can tell—you seem to have forgotten to add a page number—the assertion you added is not in the cited source. The source describes the antitrust laws' vagueness on pages 684 and 685, but it does not say that vagueness is the main source of the intense debates on antitrust, nor does it even mention their debatability at all. I hope this explains my action for you.  White Whirlwind  08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I first came across it...

... in a secondary source. Looking again here are some: [1], [2] (pdf pages 8-10), [3] (pdf page 8), [4] (pdf pages 46-48), and I also found a citation for "Roe and the Hippocratic Oath" by Martin Arbagi in Abortion and the Constitution, Dennis Horan et al. eds., 1987, pages 159-81.

Maybe if I make the frame wider it will display correctly? (I support your other recent efforts.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Terry v Ohio

WW: You reverted an edit I made on the Terry article, which you appear to agree made the article more accurate, because my revision was "not supported by" the cited source. But that source was the previously-cited source for the inaccurate statement. Wouldn't it be better to leave in the article the edit that is accurate, pending identification and insertion of a higher-quality source? Your reversion seems to turn the objective of WP's editing rules on their head. PDGPA (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@PDGPA: Maybe. I'm always hesitant of straying towards WP:OR territory. Relatedly, it's unwise to alter citation-supported sentences without checking the source to ensure it supports one's edits and, if it doesn't, updating accordingly.  White Whirlwind  19:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

About Marbury v. Madison and Marbury's commission

Hello White whirlwind. I see you are the main contributor to Marbury v. Madison. I opened a matter in the article's talk a month ago and there has been a development now. Check it out, if you want. Have a nice one. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded over there.  White Whirlwind  16:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello again, whirlwind, good Sunday to you. I need a little help about a judiciary matter here on Wikipedia, if you don't mind; a quick question. Lone Internaut (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

What is it?  White Whirlwind  22:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Bit of context: as a European of Italian mother tongue, I engaged in expanding the understanding of the important American systems, the judiciary and its important cases among others, on Wikipedia in Italian. And a doubt arose about the Dred Scott v. Sandford milestone case, which I will work on soon. The Italian article reads: "Although the question had by no means been brought before the Court, it established that even the legislation of individual states did not have the power to prohibit slavery". No sources used for this claim. My understanding is that this is wrong: based on Taney's interpretation of the 5th amendment, federal law could not prohibit slavery, but the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments (Barron v. Baltimore) before the incorporation of the 14th amendment, so I believe the Italian article is wrong and Taney's decision applied only to the federal government and I should point out and correct this. Am I right in my understanding? I couldn't find an answer on the web or in the English article, so I thought about asking you as a Wikipedian user expert in the matter. Lone Internaut (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You are doing the Lord's work, to use the English idiom, over on the Italian WP. I'm happy to report that you are correct. Dred Scott did not hold that individual states could not prohibit slavery. Nearly all Northern states had abolished slavery by the time of the decision. Perhaps the Italian editor who wrote that sentence was trying to talk about the law of Missouri or the Territory?  White Whirlwind  06:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks whirlwind, nice to know you appreciate it, I do my best and I find the matter very fascinating and important. Wikipedia in Italian actually has extensive historical coverage of the US period from its founding to the Civil War. The Dred Scott article in Italian speaks about federal law and all, however it is likely the editor who wrote that part thought the 5th amendment of the Bill also applied to states, even back then. It refers to "the legislation of the States" in general, without exclusions, perhaps, by "did not have the power to prohibit slavery" he meant that a state, or more states, could not make a slave into a free citizen of the whole United States, simply by admitting him to its or their community. Hence they did not have the power to prohibit slavery at national level. It's either a misunderstanding or a wrongly worded explanation.

You have been of invaluable help, whirlwind. I will make sure that all of this is explained better. My guess is that it's somehow implied in English-language or American law sources logic that Taney's decision does not apply to states, even his script language imply this, but if you had any sources that explain this explicitly or better, it would be great. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your many contribution. Kudos! Volten001 ☎ 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why I wasn't more assertive

I was rather lenient about the addition you said should be removed.

Once the topic ban is started, all of my edits to all articles dealing with abortion can be reverted without worrying about the three revert rule. So it didn't make sense for me even to move the offending addition to another section; the ban will probably start soon since they voted to ban me; any change I made now would lose its "weight". They are still figuring out a few details and the ban hasn't started yet.

If you want to keep working with me on the same article, it is possible for you to ask them to exempt this particular article and talk page from the topic ban. If they accept it, they could arrange that I will be permitted to edit it on good behavior and under White whirlwind's discretion. In that case, my past contributions remaining on the article would still be protected by the three revert rule. (link if you want to ask)

I recently changed some of the references on another article to another format after being asked to. That was mostly new to me and I had to learn how. I also want to change over references on this article to reduce the kilobytes.

Side note that I try to be nice to people from foreign countries who appear to be paid editors. At times I've conversed with them off of wikipedia, on a freelancing website. In the past on wikipedia I agreed to take up their tasks in return for translating things from English into the foreign language. It didn't always work out, but sometimes it did. Another side note is that I've been on the receiving end of strange, disruptive editing after sticking up for someone who was being treated poorly by a group. It didn't go on for that long, it was intended to convey a threat. Yet there are enough strange people on the internet that it is understandable if you don't want to comment.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I have had no qualms with our interactions at the Roe page and I think you have done some good work there. But a few of the reports of your behavior that appeared on the ANI page—which I've only skimmed—are a bit concerning. Your decision to interact with those paid editor(s) struck me as bizarre, frankly. Perhaps it might be best if you took a break and focused on the social and interpersonal fronts.  White Whirlwind  08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I rank low in the social hierarchy on wikipedia, so deciding to interact with paid editors was me looking for a group even lower than I was to be my friends. I got to see them as human especially after looking for translators on a freelancing website. I asked about experience, and some had edited for wikipedia.

If you don't want them to carve the Roe article out of the ban, I understand and won't continue trying to persuade you. I expect that after being banned, it will see substantial revision if there is no carve-out. Since Roe will be in the news when Dobbs is released, its article would be a major coup for anyone who wants to shift it from a neutral point of view towards propaganda. I don't know if you saw the viewership graph from May, but here it is. I expect it to repeat soon.

If the carve-out is contingent on your on-going approval, you could revoke my ability to edit the Roe article at any time at your discretion. So if you see a concerning behavior coming from me, you could respond by revoking it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I don't know what the "Wikipedia social hierarchy" is. Assuming such a thing exists, I would ignore it and focus solely on making good quality edits and getting along with other editors I encounter. That is what I try to do. Also, regarding your "carve-out" request, I must respectfully decline.  White Whirlwind  23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

edits to RvW page

White whirlwind: Thanks for your many edits and improvements to the RvW page. May I ask that you reconsider two edits that you reverted?

(1) "Three-judge district court" is the correct term to use when describing a district court composed of three judges, and it should be described as "A three-judge district court of the Northern District of Texas," rather than "A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas," which is how it currently reads. Type the "three-judge district court" phrase into google to see how it is used to describe these (now rare) court proceedings.

(2) The phrase "struck down" should not be used when describing what RvW did to state abortion statutes because many of those statutes remain on the books and will automatically go back into effect if Dobbs overrules Roe. Saying they were "struck down" implies that those statutes are no longer in existence, which is false. "Declared unconstitutional" is the better phrase to use.

Thanks for considering this. Urnslenny (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urnslenny: Thanks, always happy to discuss opinions. I'll gladly look into #1 when I get a moment. Your argument in #2 often appears on Twitter and legal blogs. But as I wrote in the edit summary, I find it to be highly pedantic. Every expert in the field already knows that the term "struck down" isn't literal, and the distinction of little significance to laypeople. I find the term pithy and useful, and expert constitutional law treatises such as Tribe and Chemerinsky have no qualms about employing it. If you continue to disagree with me, feel free to start a discussion with a larger group of interested editors, perhaps at the SCOTUS WikiProject.  White Whirlwind  07:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your point about #1 appears to be correct. Thank you for enlightening me.  White Whirlwind  09:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Lazy reverting"

I'm just letting you know, this edit summary wasn't appreciated. "Lazy reverting"? Really? Do better next time. You know as well as I do if you add content, a source has to be provided and if it isn't, that addition is likely to be reverted; nothing lazy about it. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: I'm sorry that edit summary bothered you. Unfortunately, you are quite wrong. You said, "if you add content, a source has to be provided." This is false. According to WP:Verifiability, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." WP:Citing sources says the same: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Wikipedia does not now have, and never has had, a policy that all material requires a citation. As I understand your revert's edit summary, you weren't challenging the substance of the content itself or its inherent verifiability, only the fact that I forgot to add the citation. Hence, no citation was required. (The type of material I tend to add on judges' pages nearly always comes from their SJC questionnaires and presents no verifiability problems.)  White Whirlwind  17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, if it's going to be challenged, as it was, then it needs a source. Not hard to understand. You added content that wasn't from citations already provided, that's why it was reverted. End of story. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You'll want to review WP:Verifiability. "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If you don't understand the official policies here, it'll hinder your ability to contribute to the project.  White Whirlwind  02:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be quoting policy to me, I understand it quite well. Been involved in the project for years with hardly any intervening action, so I think I'll be just fine, thanks Snickers2686 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought perhaps I did. I’m glad to hear that I don’t.  White Whirlwind  05:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested improvements for Dahua Technology

Hi White whirlwind, I am working on improving and adding content to the Dahua Technology article. As you have shown interest in China-related matters and are a member of WP:China, I thought you may be interested in reviewing my latest edit request. I would appreciate if you would help implement the changes, as I am not editing directly due to my COI. Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Erie Railroad and Butler's opinion

I understand what you are saying, but here's the problem: the Court reversed the Second Circuit. Butler's opinion ends with this paragraph;

"I am of opinion that the constitutional validity of the rule need not be considered, because under the law, as found by the courts of Pennsylvania and generally throughout the country, it is plain that the evidence required a finding that plaintiff was guilty of negligence that contributed to cause his injuries and that the judgment below should be reversed upon that ground."

So, he concurred with the result, reversing the court below. He disagreed with the grounds of reversal. That's a concurrence, not a dissent. At 304 U.S. 80 Butler's opinion is not listed as a dissent. Knockanar (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knockanar: We're getting into some fuzzy territory about what constitutes a dissent. But we can't do WP:Original research. We are bound by what we find in the major WP:Reliable sources. Let's try checking other prominent treatises and law review articles.  White Whirlwind  20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I went onto Westlaw this afternoon and checked a few, and they all call it a dissent, which I don't understand at all (I assume you are a lawyer like me, and we have both known since law school the difference between a dissent and a concurrence). I tinkered a bit with the paragraph about Butler's opinion, calling it a separate opinion that is often called a dissent ... Knockanar (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Knockanar: I understand your concern and confusion. But if the majority of the reliable sources call it a dissent, then so shall we.  White Whirlwind  21:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

author-mask

Hi, White whirlwind. What is the problem with |author-mask= that you refer to here? Kanguole 00:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kanguole: It doesn't work well with the ref mouseover feature. Users just see a blank line without the context of an above entry specifying who the author is. (Edit: to be specific, I'm referring to the "Reference Previews" beta feature, which has nearly half a million users and appears headed for standard adoption.)  White Whirlwind  00:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean mw:Reference Tooltips? I'm one of those half million users. I have an ingrained reaction at the sight of repeated author names, so it would be a pity to lose this feature. I've raised the issue at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Reference Tooltips and author-mask. Kanguole 19:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe the coders can come up with way to disable the mask parameter for the mouseovers.  White Whirlwind  21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)