User talk:Secarctangent

Tom Bullock (bartender), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secarctangent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dick Francis (bartender), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jewish emergent network, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DMySon 05:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish emergent network, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jmbranum (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Black Mixology Club and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Black Mixology Club, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SL93 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Secarctangent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Black Mixology Club, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Secarctangent. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Black Mixology Club".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secarctangent, thank you for creating the draft! I was able to find some additional sources and the article was accepted. S0091 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Secarctangent. I've noticed your edits about congressional slaveholders. I'd like to encourage you to continue. I've started doing a bit - alphabetical by 1st name - thru Absalom so far. Did you notice my article in The Signpost? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/Black History Month

I'll suggest that you might want to use the following reference (though yours is pretty good too!)

<ref name="WaPo 012022">{{cite news |last1=Weil |first1=Julie Zauzmer |last2=Blanco |first2=Adrian |last3=Dominguez |first3=Leo |title=More than 1,700 congressmen once enslaved Black people. This is who they were, and how they shaped the nation. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2022/congress-slaveowners-names-list/ |access-date=30 January 2022 |publisher=[[Washington Post]] |date=20 January 2022}}</ref>

There's a bit about the data on Wikidata there too, though I don't know a lot about Wikidata. If there is anything I can do, please let me know, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Lab/Shul, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to someone being a slave owner being mentioned in their articles, even their lead sections potentially. However, I question the necessity of putting slave ownership first in the summaries of so many people. None of the people were notable because they were slave owners, so I don't get why it should be featured so early in the article. If you don't provide a good justification for putting it first, I'll move the mention of slave ownership to slightly later in the article. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to address your comment as it doesn't reference particular articles. In some instances, that they were slaveowners is not the first thing listed about the individual; in others, that they were slaveowners (and recently brought back to historical memory by a major project by the Washington Post) is, indeed, the most notable thing about them (as their description is otherwise quite limited and pulled from existing non-copyrighted biographical sources that Wikipedia ingested en masse a long time ago).

If you had a list of the articles you objected to, I'd be very happy to discuss in more depth. Secarctangent (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awful as it was, being a slave owner was not very notable in and of itself since most rich Southerners (and many rich Northerners) owned slaves at the time. Being a politician is thus clearly the more notable thing about them, even if their career was rather uneventful. An exception would be if an event involving their slaves was more notable than their political careers, much like how P. T. Barnum's political career is mentioned third in his lead after "showman" and "businessman." I'm not even sure if it belongs in the first sentence since, with some exceptions (which seem to be for lawyers) the civilian lives of people who were most notably politicians aren't mentioned there. Exceptions I could see would be if there were indeed notable events or reports involving their slaves, as was the case with John Tolley Hood Worthington who was mentioned in the Signpost article, since abolitionist James Watkins witnessed and described atrocities he carried out on his slaves. I wouldn't call this event more notable than his political career however since as far as I can tell Watkins only mentions Worthington once.

As for which articles, it seems that as of recently you've been adding "slave owner" as the first item in the descriptions of all of the U.S. Representatives demonstrated to have owned slaves. There may be exceptions but this seems to be what you're doing in general. Despite my criticism of how you're doing this, I think it's a good thing to mention the slaveholding status of people with Wikipedia articles, since it's one of the things I'm certain many people will want to know about them. I am reminded of a map of all U. S. counties named after people who owned slaves, which I think is a valuable educational tool, so people should be able to easily check if someone owned slaves or not. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed your drive-by visual edit of this type on Burwell Bassett, because I believe it violates a number of wikipedia guidelines, as well as more general ethical standards applicable to historians (though you may primarily consider yourself an activist). For years I have taken pains to research the slave ownership of 17th and 18th century figures, and included that for this man in the article well before your edit. While your personal focus for dozens of January edits was clearly only on slaveownership, that was not this man's qualification for meeting wikipedia's notability standards. IMHO it should not be the first, much less repeatedly stressed aspect of this article, particularly without research support(such as in US Census records readily available online). The github citation isn't a reliable source even if the Washingtonpost is now promoting its partnership in the 1619 Project in its OpEd pages, etc. I don't have the time to followup every addition to pages I have edited, much less research ArbCon procedures, etc., but your responses here do not demonstrate acceptance of responsibility.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What an extremely confusing comment. You make a series of assertions about my interests in contributing to Wikipedia, as well as the Washington Post that are very non-NPOV and totally unjustified by any evidence and appear to be driven by your dislike of various groups. But if you want to die on the hill of "we shouldn't call the places where Bassett held human beings at gunpoint and chain to do his farming SLAVE plantations, we should call them just plantations," then feel free to do that, I guess. Secarctangent (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment is exactly why someone should send this matter to ArbCon or an investigative authority. You are citing NPOV against me while using it (and sarcasm) instead. I expanded the Burwell Bassett article several times between January 9 and 15, 2022, including mentioning his slaveowning, so technically your visual edit of January 24 with the github cite to the WashPost project you now admit promoting is correct. However, this Burwell Bassett preceded or succeeded more than a dozen men in the U.S. Congress, only a couple of whose articles I have edited (and which now mention slavery). The rest still do not. The reason, I dare speculate, is not because those men did not own slaves, but because the articles are skeletal and need fleshing out. Which the project the WashPost and NYT is financing is NOT doing. You accuse my edits as driven by "dislike of various groups" without specifying or giving examples, other than add some bizarre but unattributed quote about "gunpoint and chain".

I write here because I am offended by political activism and commercialization violating wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps too because my cyberbullies are fed by information brokers. Controversy can sell newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post in this era, or William Randolph Hearst using his New York Journal more than a century ago to foment what became the Spanish-American War. I cannot prove your affiliation with cyberbullies who have been targeting me for years, including the "unidentified caller" who left no message on my cellphone after last evening's edits, preceding that which set you off (because of course I cannot call him or her back, although when such callers have left messages, they invariably solicit real estate and fail to identify themselves, plus my home is in an area where Jeff Bezos' Amazon is expanding and I can deduce that his various companies may want to help employees or commercial partners). Nor can I prove your affiliation with cell phone texters from various area codes who violate the federal do-not-call list and brag about using fake names when soliciting real estate -- when I remind them, sometimes text back "STFU" but googling shows no contact information, often only a link to an information brokerage site.Jweaver28 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lab/Shul, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I'm gonna go through the additions you made on congressional slaveowners and adjust them a little bit. While I agree that it is important to notate that these men were slaveowners, I think generally it is not WP:DUE to present this as the first identifier for 99% of these cases. Examples of these instances are Samuel Betts and Asa Biggs, where it is very shoehorned in. I think the instance in Thomas Hart Benton (politician) is a good example of how this should generally be included. Of course, some people like James Patton Anderson should have this identifier clearly in the lede, as it is a major aspect of their biography. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with those changes. If a politician was also a kidnapper, we'd say that was more important than random bills they passed. Why is that different for a politician who forcibly kidnapped people and then demanded that they work for that politician for free? Secarctangent (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to read our policy on what constitutes due and undue weight. This isn't negating that they were slaveowners, it is just rearranging the layout of the articles. Curbon7 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object as factually groundless the claim that I haven't read the policy. Secarctangent (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this issue has arisen again. Except in rare circumstances where a person's notability derives primarily from their slave ownership, it is clearly WP:UNDUE to describe a person as a "slave owner" at the start of the lede sentence, before the other major attributes for which they were known, especially if the discussion of slave ownership in the article is minor and there are other much more historically significant factors that make the subject WP notable. Ergo Sum 11:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your interpretation of the policy. Ted Kaczynski is not most notable for being a mathematician. Secarctangent (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack notwithstanding, if you revert in material removed as a BLP violation one more time I will be reporting you to arbitration enforcement and seeking sanctions. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is not optional here, neither is WP:ONUS. nableezy - 06:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged in no personal attack. You publicly disclose, on your user page, your support for a group that Wikipedia itself describes as antisemitic. You are repeatedly deleting my content about antisemitism because you don't like it. How is this not a violation of NPOV? Secarctangent (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You very much did, and if you lack the reading comprehension to understand the userbox thats ok, but what is not ok is to continue making personal attacks. Kindly stop. nableezy - 13:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to retract any statement that is inaccurate. (For example, if I am somehow misunderstanding who put the pro-Hezbollah content on your userbox and it was not in fact you, I would gladly correct and retract my previous statements. I add content here in pursuit of the truth, not any agenda.).

In that same spirit, I would equally ask you to avoid attacking my literacy, please. Secarctangent (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why I should spend the time or effort in explaining anything to you, the userbox is already clear to anybody who actually reads it, but that misses the point anyway. WP:NPA is very clear. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Even if I were a supporter of Hezbollah you have zero cause to attack me in anyway. People may feel about say Israel the way you feel about Hezbollah. None of that matters here. If you are unable to discuss the content and would instead like to continue to focus on the contributor you may be reported for violating that policy. nableezy - 18:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect; as per the exact policy you cite, "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic." You're under no obligation to explain your lack of conflict, of course, but I would politely request that if you aren't interested in doing so, that you cease posting to this talk page. Cheers. Secarctangent (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what pray tell would the WP:COI be that I have? Read that policy before you answer. Having a different viewpoint than you does not mean I am writing about "[my]self, family, friends, clients, employers, or [my] financial and other relationships" or any other external relationship. I have no intention of posting here again if you do not make me reporting your repeated violations of NPA and BLP necessary. But writing "an openly pro-Hezbollah editor shouldn't be trusted on anti-semitism issues" is not questioning an editor about a possible conflict of interest, it is making a straightforward personal attack. And if it is repeated it will be reported. Toodles, nableezy - 21:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight? Your strategy is:

1. Assert that someone's attacking you for pointing out what they, in good faith, believe is a conflict of interest
2. That person volunteers to correct any statement that's inaccurate.
3. Instead of explaining how it isn't a conflict of interest, you repeatedly post on their page attacking them.
4. They ask you to stop posting on their page.
5. You ignore them and keep on posting through it.
6. You threaten to report them for something they haven't done.

Great choices.

Let me suggest that if you keep on posting here on this issue, then I'm happy to report you as well. Alternatively, you can go your way and I can go mine, and we can both enjoy contributing to this lovely website. Secarctangent (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked you once, I have not threatened to report you for something you have not done, and I will stay off your page except to answer specious claims about me. WP:ASPERSIONS is likewise relevant, and since you keep posting about Hezbollah, let me add this required discretionary sanctions notice as well:

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

If you make no futher false claims about me I will have no reason to post here again. My post here is a requirement prior to reporting you for violating an arbitration decision at AE. nableezy - 23:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to please leave me alone and stop posting on my talk page. I also continue to respectfully state that I have never made any knowingly false claims about you, and continue to offer to retract and correct any claims that you demonstrate with verifiable evidence are incorrect. Cheers. Secarctangent (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first incorrect claim is that I have a userbox that expresses support for Hezbollah. The second is that even if that were true that would mean that I cannot be trusted on material related to antisemitism. That is a straightforward implication that I am an antisemite, and that is a risible personal attack. The userbox, if you paid even the slightest bit of attention, makes an anodyne statement of support for a right repeatedly recognized in international law, and it says it applies to all people. The point of the userbox is that it is criticizing Wikipedia's WP:BIAS in what allowed, at the time, a statement for support of Israel and not one for support of Hezbollah at a time when they were engaged in armed conflict with one another. It is a userbox criticizing Wikipedias attempts at political correctness. It does not support Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other specific group. It says this user recognizes the rights of all people to resist literal war crimes. If you are unable to understand that then, like I said earlier, that is fine. What is not fine is attempting to use ad hominem attacks in talk pages and edit summaries. Those are personal attacks, and again, if repeated they will be reported. nableezy - 23:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have asked you to please stop posting on my talk page. At this point, I can only conclude you are doing so intentionally despite my repeated requests. Secarctangent (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just said "and continue to offer to retract and correct any claims that you demonstrate with verifiable evidence are incorrect." Im done with the game now, since you apparently were not making that offer sincerely. Good bye. nableezy - 23:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely making that offer sincerely. You are more than welcome to follow up on that on the Alice Walker page where the discussion began. Secarctangent (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [1]. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead of an article should be a general overview of an article. In exact the MOS states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.", with the addendum of "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.". This additions to the lead of this article is simply WP:UNDUE; while it can and probably should be mentioned within the body of the article, it violates the MOS for inclusion in the lead. I wanted to open communication with you directly instead of starting a revert-war, as I feel you are a well-intentioned editor. Curbon7 (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been copy and pasted in history section, which in this article happened to be directly below the lead section, I corrected it. Secarctangent (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FrederalBacon. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dave Yost without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Per WP:REMOVAL, content stays in until consensus is reached to remove it. See here for more information. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this message doesn't make sense given your other message on the edit revert. Please clarify. Secarctangent (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Material should stay in (except in certain circumstances) during content removal discussions. Anything added in bad faith should be removed, we assume good faith here on Wiki, so the assumption is that the information was added in good faith.

It can be removed

" * The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful

• The neutrality of the material may be in question
• The copyright status of the material is in question
• One or more external links are in question"

The second two don't matter in this case, so the only two reasons to typically remove before or during discussion is if it's potentially harmful, or if it's neutrality is questioned. You didn't question either of those, you questioned relevance, both editors who removed the info did. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you did, in terms of removing obviously glaring issues, was a good idea, but just be aware, the term "meaning that potentially at least one rape victim a week could potentially be forced to carry their rapist's baby to term" isn't mentioned anywhere in that article and is probably gonna get removed by someone for Synth. I'm not gonna, I think it's a fair summation of the article, but someone is gonna read the article, call it Synth, and remove it. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it (by reverting to the accurate description of the Dispatch analysis) as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In response to the remover's edit summary, the fact that the Dispatch did not examine (or at least did not report) how many of the historical cases might or might not have been exempt under the current law is important information to accompany the statistics they reported so that readers understand what they do (and do not) mean. In this case, your "simplification" removes important information valuable to our reader. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, saying that a report "did not indicate" something does not imply that the reporter "had evaluated a legal claim and been unable to come to a conclusion"; it says that the report did not indicate something. If you are reading something else into that sentence, that is your error. General Ization ^Talk 01:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand how this language becomes "fairer" by referring to exemptions to the law (which are not discussed until the next paragraph) that might have made some number of the historical abortions legal, as opposed to the law that otherwise makes them illegal. Neither set of figures were reported in conjunction with the statistics, so I think this is a distinction without a difference and serves only to make the sentence confusing to the reader. General Ization ^Talk 16:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in discussing this, please use the article talk page. It's not helpful to other editors to have discussion of your proposed edits on an individual editor's talk page that might not be easy for others to find. Thanks. Secarctangent (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing it here because at this point you seem to be the only editor who feels the need to repeatedly revise this sentence. If you would like to start a discussion on the article's Talk page, I'll be happy to participate, but at this point I am here to explain why I reverted your most recent edit. See WP:BRD. General Ization ^Talk 22:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's appropriate to keep on posting to someone's talk page after they've asked you to stop? Secarctangent (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No rationale"? WP:POV was the rationale, as I said in my edit summary. Just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it belongs. And your POV was noticeable; the source talks about Central and South America, where it's legal, and doesn't refer to U.S. drug scheduling. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your rationale now as to why you thought it was WP:POV, I appreciate you. I am happy to inform you that as per Ayahuasca#Legal status, it is a Schedule I drug internationally due to UN convention, so no such POV concerns. I'm happy to add the word "UN" to ensure no confusion. Cheers! Secarctangent (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Vinton, Iowa, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please seek a consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- please see my comments on the article talk page. Cheers! Secarctangent (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Vinton, Iowa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not accurate. Another user is repeatedly reverting the previous version of the page without seeking consensus. Why are you attempting to warn me and not them? Secarctangent (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're only removing the sources, take it up on the talk page and stop edit warring. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't remove any sources, other than (it looks like) you reverting my edit before I could fix issues with the citations not pasting in. Is that what you're referring to? If so, I was trying to add those sources back but my edit didn't merge due to a conflict. I'm happy to re-add the text with the citations as well. Secarctangent (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Joni Ernst. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I have no clue how edits to make that article NPOV violates NPOV. Could you explain why you think my edits were POV? Secarctangent (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And please read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Viking Saga censorship incident, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Northwest High School required transgender staff members of the student newspaper to use deadnames in bylines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Viking Saga censorship incident. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Viking Saga censorship incident), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm basically saying the same thing you were told before by other users. First off, it's fine that you're adding this information. No complaints there. And yes, slavery was extremely horrible and this isn't an attempt to defend slavery - I've reverted plenty of Lost Causers on other articles. But shaming slaveholders on this does not necessarily mean doing this in the very first sentence unless that is what the sources do. This is simply a matter of proper English presentation and accuracy to sources: one Washington Post article does not override everything else written about someone. Wikipedia should reflect the sources.

Additionally, you wrote in your edit summary "if someone was a murderer, would you say it wasn't notable simply because plenty of people commit murders?" First off, I never said it wasn't notable, I just moved the information to not be literal-first-thing-said-about-them prominence. Secondly, we absolutely do not mention murders as the first thing about people if they're more notable for other things. Henry VIII murdered Anne Boleyn, it's not the first thing said. Or for a more modern example, Edward Kennedy caused the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, and that isn't the first thing said about them either. Or for another more modern example, here's an edit of me ADDING a murder of Harlon Carter to the lede, but it still isn't "First sentence" worthy because his actions as head of the NRA were frankly more important, his crime was as a teenager, and most importantly that the incident was fairly obscure in the sources on him - the problem with Carter wasn't his murder, it was has awful-but-influential politics. The point is, we don't always lead an encyclopedia entry with all the crimes the subject ever committed in the first sentence. This is even more obvious when talking about "reformed" people who committed a crime but then got their life back on track, and shouldn't be defined by the very worst thing they ever did.

Look, if you want to add slaveholding information to articles, please do. But it shouldn't go in the first sentence unless that is also how the sources depict the person, e.g. because they were a notable part of the slavery debate. The Washington Post data is not enough here. SnowFire (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any evidence that crimes against humanity were not the most notable thing about the individual in question. Is there any evidence that is the case? Secarctangent (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you've run around adding this to a bunch of articles which I highly doubt you have read all the sources on, I think you have the burden of proof reversed here. And... yes? It'd be all their actions as a politicians that gave them notability, that's why there's articles about them here on Wikipedia and not usually articles on Pompous Antebellum Southern Gentleman #117 who held slaves but didn't participate in government. And again - to repeat myself - to mention and aggressively remind the reader that these were terrible, terrible people is fine, but it is not usually first sentence material, unless their slaveholding was very notable in the era.

Note that this is often true for even real shitheads. Jefferson Davis was far, far worse than his role as slavemaster of ~100some slaves. Lots of Southerners were slaveowners in that era, but only one was the president of the CSA. If his article led with him merely being a slaveowner, this would greatly understate his evil. SnowFire (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is...an extremely strange argument. I wish you well in your Jefferson Davis-defending endeavours. Secarctangent (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I see you have been warned about this before, in March 2022, May 2022, and now in February 2023. As other users have said, for example on the edit summaries for Robert E. Withers, please be more careful about how you add this information to Wikipedia. It does not necessarily belong in the lede, let alone the first sentence, and is unlikely to belong in the first clause of the first sentence. Please also check whether the information is already mentioned in the article, for example Robert Witherspoon.

The Washington Post source is just a database; all it tells us is whether a person owned slaves. There is zero further information or analysis of that person. Therefore, to add this information to the beginning of the first sentence of, for example, Samuel H. Woodson (Missouri politician), is WP:Original research. In certain cases, such as George D. Wise (politician), I think your edit is correct, because it is backed up by the other sources. In short, please think a little more carefully about your edits rather than just simply adding the information to the beginning of every article.

cagliost (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand how using a reliable secondary source that tells us that the person owns slaves is "original research," under WP:Original research. Can you point to the section of the policy that indicates that? I just reread it and don't understand your point. Secarctangent (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one has told you to remove the information, the problem is putting it at the beginning of the first sentence.

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which says "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources."

An entry in the Washington Post database is not enough, by itself, to establish that slave ownership is the most important fact about someone. Samuel H. Woodson (Missouri politician) is notable for being a politician, not for being a slave owner. Therefore, the article should describe him first as a politician, not as a slave owner.

You may think slave ownership is "the most notable thing about [an] individual in question" (your words), but unless you can produce a source that says so, that is just your opinion, which makes it Original Research.

Regards, cagliost (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...if you can't even figure out which policy you want to cite, I don't see how this would be productive to discuss further. I wish you the best with your future editorial endeavours. Secarctangent (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Escambia County School District, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit to Escambia County, Florida, about the School District being sued over book banning because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There may be a time and place for covering book banning by the school board, but that should be in the article about the school board, and only after sufficient quality coverage exists to support a neutral account of the book banning and its development. Since the same thing is likely to happen in other school districts in Florida, I believe the subject will be better covered at the state level, as the bannings were prompted by directives from the state. Oh, and for a bit of historical context, 64 years ago I wrote a letter to a newspaper, which they published, decrying the banning of books at my high school. - Donald Albury 21:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearly demonstrating that you're letting personal bias affect your edits! Secarctangent (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Nampa, Idaho. Much of what you removed was supported by WP:USCITIES. Feel free to trim the article, but please don't remove relevant content. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Moms for Liberty, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Derrick Van Orden, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. natemup (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would note for third parties' sake that editor Natemup is repeatedly attempting to add content to this article despite lack of consensus around his synth claims, and also has a self-declared conflict of interest on issues related to this article. Secarctangent (talk) Secarctangent (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]