Please sign your messages on
talk pages with four
tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "
signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the
mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
Jhhillman, good luck, and have fun. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 06:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The Satanic Temple
I didn't see a source for this (see
WP:VERIFY and we should never tell readers what is worth noting.
Doug Wellertalk 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Fred Sargeant
Adding loaded descriptions about a controversial group, especially while debate continues about how to describe the
LGB Alliance on that page, to other articles is inappropriate as well as
WP:COATRACK. Supportive sourcing from the police who are investigating, where they simply say they are investigating, is not "editorializing". Your edit summary was inaccurate and this blanking of sources and content has all the characteristics of a
POV push. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼ 19:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I edited the description of the LGB Alliance in the Sargeant article to almost exactly match how the page on the LGB Alliance itself describes it. It's wildly inappropriate to mention the LBG Alliance with no note of the controversy around it. The summary of the LGB Alliance I gave is an abridged version of the first two paragraphs of
LGB Alliance. How can you advocate keeping the part quoting the organization's description of itself without mentioning why it's a controversial organization? Reading the current description, you wouldn't know the LGB Alliance has any particular opinion on the transgender debate at all.
In regards to the "2022 incident" section, it's you who is violating
WP:COATRACK. Your version is mostly made up of quotes from various media commenters (mostly from groups or people who have already stakes out a very clear side in this broader ideological debate) about the event and how awful it was. This is a very clear coat-rack. Please explain how a J.K. Rowling tweet is relevant information here. Additionally, it's very unnecessary to include Sargeant's explanation of the sign he was carrying, I think the simple description of it suffices.
In regards to the sources about the incident itself, I would point you toward my previous comments, which I made nearly three weeks before editing the article with no pushback from you or anyone else. Specifically, refer to
Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL and the passages "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes" and "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone". Not only does your edit quote directly from Sargeant, every single source you include cites only Sargeant's comments in the incident. There are no third-party sources here. This is a very clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL.
I would also like to note that the police statement is not what you make it out to be either. All that the police said is that they had received reports of some type of incident, with no additional details. They said at the time that they were "looking into it", but three weeks later there has been no additional statement from Burlington PD about the incident, so the claim that it is being investigated appears to be out of date. The fact of the matter is that the only person who had provided any details about this incident is Sargeant himself, and that directly contravenes WP:IMPARTIAL.
Your behavior around this article and toward other editors is also in very clear violation of
WP:STONEWALLING and
WP:OWNERSHIP. You have repeatedly blocked and reverted good-faith attempts to correct the blatant violations of Wikipedia policy in this article and provided no clear justification for any of it. If you continue doing this I am happy to invoke
WP:DR and pass this issue up the chain to someone who can resolve it, as an edit war wastes everyone's time. I'll wait a couple days before making a reversion. I sincerely hope that you are making these edits in good faith and attempting to follow Wikipedia's polices rather than push your own ideological perspective, but the longer this goes on without you providing any sources beyond Sargeant's comments or any justification for the inclusion of things like articles about tweets about the incident the harder that is to believe. If you're not willing to do that, I believe we should make a report on the
dispute resolution noticeboard.
Jhhillman (
talk) 04:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Also replied on the talk page. Fully support what you've said here Jhhillman.
219.88.68.195 (
talk) 21:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
Hi Jhhillman! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.