![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion on the talk page for linking private prisons on the talk page for GEO Group Stadium. I will be leaving a similar note on Niteshift36's talk page. – Runfellow ( talk) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am a college student writing a research paper on China's takeover of Tibet, so I came to Mao's page for some information but I don't see anything about Tibet on his page. I looked through the history of his page and noticed that you are one of the top contributors of his page. Why do you think that no one has written or mentioned anything about Tibet? Would you consider adding something about Tibet on his page? I know that there are people who reject Tibet as its own country but don't you think there should be at least something about Tibet? Thank you for your time.-- Madeintibet59 ( talk) 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
That seems an interesting way to question a claim in the text, it is unlikely that the cribb article itself is a dubious source it is more likely a conlcusion that has been prapphrased from the article, perhaps you might consider taking it to the talk page yourself rather than leaving a tag like that? (Indonesian Killings has been a contested article over some considerable time due to the POV regarding US involvement, which also ignores the UK involvement etc etc) I am not sure whether you have ever had a practical or productive response to leaving tags like that in articles? It seems that any idea of NPOV gets very easily lost for articles like that one. sats 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I suspect there may well be evidence that some percentage of US poor (possibly "many") are better off than the poor in other countries. However, that is no justification for quoting a right-wing political activist organization like Heritage about the poor, which is rather like quoting the Nazi party about Jews, or quoting the KKK about African-Americans. And the fact that your opponent in the "edit conflict" keeps referring to "government figures" without ever quoting them or providing links to government web sites clearly suggests that either the figures do not exist or do not substantiate what he claims they substantiate. Which is why I stuck my nose in. Arcanicus ( talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi C.J. I noticed your edit from a little while ago to The Heritage Foundation article and wanted to mention something about it. First though, I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation so my participation with this article is strictly limited to the talk page. I won't make any changes to what you added, but I wanted to point out a slight inaccuracy that I hope you can correct.
The source you used to support the information you added notes that it was Heritage Action that warned legislators not to vote for the Senate budget compromise, but the edit you made just says "Heritage". Though related, Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation are not the same organization.
I had left a message about this on the talk page so that the conversation was open to everyone, but there hasn't been a reply there yet. Here is that message. Do you have time to revisit this and let me know what you think about clarifying which organization issued the warning? Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 19:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the main reasons that I reverted your comment on the [2] Iraq War was about DU rounds causing birth defects is there are other causes [3]both dealing with radiation and non-radiation that could have caused it. Here is a article that takes about how looters were inadvertently exposing people back in 2003 [4].
Articseahorse ( talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
When Adham says “forever,” it’s not really an exaggeration. The aftereffects of the attack will last a long time and has already gone through the generations, affecting those who weren’t even born in 1988.
“So far there is no comprehensive study showing a cause-effect relation between the chemical attack and the high number of congenital defects or blood cancer we have been registering among kids here,” said Jihad Hama, a doctor in Halabja’s German Center for the Psychologically and Physically Disabled, which is financed by German aid. [5] But most of the victims in Halabja are certain that direct exposure of parents to the gas, and then to contaminated soil and water, has caused a high number of miscarriages and children suffering from severe diseases.
Also the link from democracy now is hardly neutral considering that there are other reports that are more detailed that is presented without a forgone conclusion.
I would strongly suggest using this article to replace the one from Democracy now to help with issues POV pushing.
Articseahorse (
talk)
23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your recent edit to Economic Inequality because I had already added the Oxfam statistic yesterday (appears earlier in same section). Apologies if I did something wrong, I'm new at this and this is my first revert. Also, is it just me or does that whole section need some cleanup work? Lots of statistics but not sure they are organized very well. GuineaPigC77 ( talk) 06:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
C.J. Griffin - Don't plan to get involved but I do watch the article Income inequality in the United States. May I suggest, if this is the opinion of Moberg or empirical research, that your add an in-line attribution for the viewpoint. As it is now, it either looks like the opinion of Navarro (carry over from the prior sentence) or a clear statement of fact. Morphh (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully assert that this section is accurate unbiased and necessary and further that the combination of citations justifies the statement made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a source from a Las Vegas Newspaper, and I assert that this alongside the, "polemics" and Reason TV source combined affirm the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Escalating to dispute resolution or WP:NPOVN might seem less satisfying, but it's better than risking a block or worse. Thank you for your careful eye. EllenCT ( talk) 23:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spumuq (
talk •
contribs)
13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Income Inequality in the United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 September 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Income Inequality in the United States, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:TransporterMan (
talk)
17:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi there! Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!
Hi, Grognard or not: I have nothing against your edit on the
TPP page which I have contributed to too, but an edit summary would facilitate working through my watch list a lot. its a simple form of paying respect to others... and as a Grognard, you should know.
--
Wuerzele (
talk)
03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I note that the revised improvement was reverted again. I don't want to edit war, so if you want the improvement to your consensus version which covers all taxes in the article, please put it in. EllenCT ( talk) 14:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
C.J., thanks for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work.
Regarding my recent revert of the "contribution" by the IP address *.176.11: "The history of biology is littered with horrifying examples of the misuse of genetics (and evolutionary theory) to justify power and inequality: evolutionary justifications for slavery and colonialism, scientific explanations for rape and patriarchy, and genetic explanations for the inherent superiority of the ruling elite." -Pankaj Mehta, There's a gene for that (February 2014), Jacobin.
Best Regards, IjonTichy ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear about this, I fully support the creation of a subsection about ALEC's anti-union policies. It's just that the way you wrote it was really about Walker and Wisconsin, not about ALEC. The subsection should summarize ALEC's policies and highlight any notable developments. If we mentioned all of the instances when individual states have adopted ALEC model bills then the article would become seriously bloated. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I went to the book's description. It said nothing about IWW. I appologize for jumping the gun. Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi CJ, thanks for your additions to Bernie Sanders. Could you please use {{ cite web}} when adding references? Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd like your thoughts on this: [7] Do you think we should add a few words? If you do, which part of the article? Or should we just wait for a few days to see what develops? I'm assuming that eventually this will come to be seen as a major issue and we will cover it, but I'm wondering if it is too soon to include something. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss your recent revert of my changes at the TP of the article as per BRD. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I am confused why did you say that you agreed with another user on the SNL skit being deleted when I was the one who deleted it? Darkninja505 ( talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello C.J.
My name is Brad and I'm a writer. I'm currently researching the changes that have been made to Bernie Sanders' Wikipedia entry since the start of his campaign — would you have time to send a few emails back and forth regarding your work on the entry?
Cheers, Brad
Hello CJ, I see you undid some edits on the above page please see my explanations on the talk page and comment. I could not see any comments or reasons for your undo's. /info/en/?search=Talk:Economic_inequality#Recent_edits Thank you. People1750 ( talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes i saw that. Still the issue still remains of inappropriate wording. Please respond on the talk page. Thank you. People1750 ( talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey CJ,
You
made a compelling point before when I used some
CIA sources for the article at
Indonesian killings of 1965–66. Now I'm wondering if and how we could use the following two sources for anything there. They contain a lot of information that appears to shed new light on foreign understanding at the time. I'm not sure if they would be considered
primary though, since they seem to have both been written much later and in reference to earlier documents. See for yourself:
Thanks, Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 10:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the dispute you were having with User:Rjensen regarding the Neoliberalism page. I am having a similar dispute with him regarding the Neoconservatism page; he keeps reversing my addition of Hillary Clinton to the page, misrepresenting why in the edit description, claims my sources aren't RS when I believe they are...I could go on. There is some discussion on the Talk:Neoconservatism page but his responses seem to just be attempts to confuse the issue. He also keeps trying to claim BLP protections, my sources are simply "attacks" on Hillary Clinton. I really don't even know how to begin dealing with an editor like this, and was hoping you might be able to assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.173.99 ( talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
(No suspicion of anything on you - I just mentioned you so I need to alert you here.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
12:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC))
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You removed my edit of TPP without commenting on the talk page. Please explain on the talk page. /info/en/?search=Talk:Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Bad_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.209.246 ( talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |