MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled: new section Tag: |
Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
A [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Passed:_7D_Remove_autopatrolled_from_default_toolkit|recently closed]] Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove [[WP:Autopatrolled|Autopatrolled]] from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with [[WP:EFM|Edit Filter Manager]], choose to [[Special:UserRights/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|self-assign]] this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Administrators_will_no_longer_be_autopatrolled|Administrator's Noticeboard]]. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
A [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Passed:_7D_Remove_autopatrolled_from_default_toolkit|recently closed]] Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove [[WP:Autopatrolled|Autopatrolled]] from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with [[WP:EFM|Edit Filter Manager]], choose to [[Special:UserRights/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|self-assign]] this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Administrators_will_no_longer_be_autopatrolled|Administrator's Noticeboard]]. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=1058184441 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=1058184441 --> |
||
== Wikipedia is biased toward left, Democrat and mainstream media political viewpoints == |
|||
Truly I say to you, that Wikipedia has become, not an honest journalistic source, but instead a secretively biased one. |
|||
To illustrate this point, I offer an editor's pen to selected guidelines for editing Wikipedia: |
|||
""Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is." - edit: "Not simply truth, but verifiable truth is the criteria for inclusion." |
|||
"We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology." - Everyone promotes an ideology. Instead of this logically impossible and false disclaimer, factual and honest reporting requires revealing one's ideology and presumptions about the world in reporting information. |
|||
"recognized authors," "respected publishers," "User-generated sources," are vague, change over time (i.e., respectability changes as persons change), and are therefore invitations for Wikipedia to promote its own ideology behind the scenes. A truly objective standard is needed if one is interested in journalistic (and that is really what Wikipedia is doing) integrity and honesty. |
|||
"Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. [not really possible, and more self-serving ("I am neutral in my writing") especially without honestly exposing one's underlying ideology, as indicated above] Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, [in order to have integrity and be a truly honest and reputable reporter, Wikipedia should be not only concerned, but obsessed with facts. It should ONLY be interested in opinions when those opinions actually are facts (e.g., Karl Marx held the opinion that blacks are an inferior race., or Margaret Sanger held the opinion that blacks were an inferior race and therefore should be discouraged and even prevented from pro-creating., an appropriate journalistic use for quotations)] it just summarizes reliable sources [clearly Wikipedia does much more than just summarize sources, it summarizes them with text, which necessarily characterizes the 'reliable sources' within an ideological framework]. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. [this statement itself asserts an understanding of the world that is true - namely that the modern, and incorrect, belief that the only world is that which can be scientifically observed and understood - things such as spirituality, the soul, and love, which can be clearly observed to be real, but the impact of things which aren't subject to our current limited ability to observed are thereby excluded (which is itself awful science). Almost anything ever asserted "has evidence for" it.] In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. [This is a false dichotomy. Religion and science rather, apply to everything. This distinction is therefore ridiculous. Is love "science," for example, or is it "religion?" This is a ridiculous question. Science is examination of observable (and not necessarily just "physical") things about love, and religion is an examination of the true meaning, source, and philosophy of love. It is not possible to analyze anything related to religion without taking some "stance on doctrine," no matter how small. This statement would also suggest that psychology, not being physical, will not be treated as science. The heart of both religion and science is determining what things are absolutely true (laws). The philosophical problem in much of this guideline is the idea of post-modernism, that there is no absolute truth. This is a ridiculous idea, when some absolute truths (e.g.,gravity) are known to be absolutely true. To have true "neutral" reporting, and good science or religion, this concept must be extracted from our thought processes.] |
|||
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. [This is an extreme error in judgment, giving a cultural group all the say as to what is true. "Mainstream academia," has in many ways become very faulty over the past century or so, and whether or not one believes that, it has definitely changed, and not always advanced, sometimes (as science dictates) proven wrong and adjusted its direction accordingly. Evolution had been rejected by mainstream academia for all time prior to Darwin's suggestions. ] For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. [You choose this example for effect, but conveniently omit examples where science has adopted positions previously deemed ridiculous by "mainstream academia."] |
|||
[Wikipedia is frequently soliciting funds based on lack. The concept of such a forum as Wikipedia is an honorable one. However, customers come to the market for objective truth and facts, not bias. Wikipedia is contemporarily widely perceived as clearly biased toward leftism, Marxism, progressivism, Democrats and the (mostly American) mainstream media. You should not only want this to not be perceived (in order to support the noble journalistic and technological endeavor), but to actually not be true. This is why I, and many, many others similarly situated, do not contribute funds, or provide moral support, though we value the concept.] |
|||
He who has ears, let him hear. |
Revision as of 17:54, 18 December 2021
—Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
...And I'm either asleep, teaching Japanese toddlers the word "no," or ...something. |
... | ...see my contributions, go here. | ...just generally feel lost, read this. |
---|---|---|
...want to accuse me of a Christian bias, read this. | ...want to accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this. |
...want to know more about me, see my user page. |
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)
To-do: red plastic gas cans
These things are ubiquitous in the US (or at least any part I've been to) but we don't have an article on them. Like, I've only ever seen three consistent models (each different sizes of the same basic pattern) and looking online, it looks like those are the only three models that have been allowed since the gas crisis in the '70s.[original research?]
I've got a lot of other things on my plate, but I think these might be sufficient sources for someone (me, anyone else, whoever) to write up an article on them:
- News article
- News article
- News article
- News article
- News article
- Gov't regulation document
- Gov't regulation document
- Gov't regulation document
- "Non-Profit" run by the companies that make these things (haven't actually read through and found specific pages yet)
The last source definitely doesn't establish WP:NOTE and I'd normally be wary of anyone insisting that it be used. Still, I think they also discuss regulatory info and maybe manufacturing history. Given the news sources (all of which are "oh shit, these things are exploding again" and "please stop doing things to make them explode"), I think it's safe to say that its inclusion probably won't amount to promotion.
I'm not sure that this would accomplish much more than a stub, at least with my usual "summarize, paraphrase, combine overlapping statements" approach. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I saw this up in your table of contents. Those damned things are a colossal nuisance , I finally found a brand that allows better control of flow and doesn't end up slopping gas all over the lawnmower, generator, or tiller. The mesh screen appears nowadays to be broadly used. They also come in yellow for diesel and blue for kerosene. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am remembering my dad using blue barrels made of the same material for kerosene back when we had a space heater but yeah, I do see the same design in blue and yellow. (I think he got them on sale, I'm not sure I've seen them in stores ever again, and boy hell were they trouble to get rid of). Guess I need to look for sources on the diesel and kerosene ones and figure out what the industry name is for this family of cans. They're not Jerrycans (which is where gas can currently redirects): they're broader, have a handle on the back, and the stamping on the sides is just embossed warning text (not a structural feature). (I'm sure you know but other talk page watchers who haven't opened the links might be wondering why I want to reinvent the Jerrycan).
- There's another gas can design that I'm seeing, "Safety gas cans," which I suppose needs to be written about as well. Basically squat half-capsule mini-barrels with a handle and spout on the flatly rounded top. They're why I haven't just made "gas can" about the red plastic ones, since we really need "gas can" to be a disambig between the standard plastic, the Jerrycan, and the safety gas cans. Thanks for helping me realize that. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm accumulating a museum of gas cans. I got two of the safety cans after squirrels started eating the plastic ones. After that generation of squirrels died they seem to have stopped munching plastic and confine themselves to the house, so now I have some plastic ones that are easier to handle, and a yellow one in case we run out of heating oil - I can get off-road diesel and use that in a pinch. I think fuel container is a safe generic term. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I guess maybe a redirect to Bin bag would suffice? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikibreak
I should have announced this sooner but it just kinda crept up on me. Between various issues (less prep time at work, trying to affordably diet and exercise better), I've just not had enough energy when I'm home beyond what I need to get ready for the next work day or upcoming week.
I've bought some sources to expand articles on Goetic demons, though. I may work some on that without fully coming off of the Wikibreak. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ian - we haven't interacted much, so sorry for coming out of the blue, but I wanted to tell you that when I was in my 'I have an account, but I mostly just read stuff without commenting' stage, your contributions were a real inspiration for me to actually get involved. You were one of the most active editors on some of the pages I was interested in, and I saw your name come up time and again attached to sensible, rational comments. So, yeah - I'm a fan.
- Anyone deserves and can self-award a break whenever they want to; I'd suggest that you have definitely earned one if you feel like it, and should take as long as you need/want. If you want to do some article-writing without engaging with admin stuff (or anything else) you're still doing good work - thank you! Girth Summit (blether) 23:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am going to pile on here as another "out of the blue" editor. I don't think we have ever interacted directly at all but you have certainly provided value to me as an editor (and no doubt to Wikipedia as a whole) and that does not go away because you have other things to focus on whether that shift in focus is temporary or permanent. Now go get some exercise! :) S0091 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Wikipedia_Administrator.svg/70px-Wikipedia_Administrator.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Wikipedia_laurier_anime.gif/80px-Wikipedia_laurier_anime.gif)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Wikipe-tan_mopping.svg/60px-Wikipe-tan_mopping.svg.png)
—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
You protected this one before, and I'd like a second set of eyes on what's been going on with an IP with a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is biased toward left, Democrat and mainstream media political viewpoints
Truly I say to you, that Wikipedia has become, not an honest journalistic source, but instead a secretively biased one.
To illustrate this point, I offer an editor's pen to selected guidelines for editing Wikipedia:
""Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is." - edit: "Not simply truth, but verifiable truth is the criteria for inclusion."
"We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology." - Everyone promotes an ideology. Instead of this logically impossible and false disclaimer, factual and honest reporting requires revealing one's ideology and presumptions about the world in reporting information.
"recognized authors," "respected publishers," "User-generated sources," are vague, change over time (i.e., respectability changes as persons change), and are therefore invitations for Wikipedia to promote its own ideology behind the scenes. A truly objective standard is needed if one is interested in journalistic (and that is really what Wikipedia is doing) integrity and honesty.
"Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. [not really possible, and more self-serving ("I am neutral in my writing") especially without honestly exposing one's underlying ideology, as indicated above] Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, [in order to have integrity and be a truly honest and reputable reporter, Wikipedia should be not only concerned, but obsessed with facts. It should ONLY be interested in opinions when those opinions actually are facts (e.g., Karl Marx held the opinion that blacks are an inferior race., or Margaret Sanger held the opinion that blacks were an inferior race and therefore should be discouraged and even prevented from pro-creating., an appropriate journalistic use for quotations)] it just summarizes reliable sources [clearly Wikipedia does much more than just summarize sources, it summarizes them with text, which necessarily characterizes the 'reliable sources' within an ideological framework]. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. [this statement itself asserts an understanding of the world that is true - namely that the modern, and incorrect, belief that the only world is that which can be scientifically observed and understood - things such as spirituality, the soul, and love, which can be clearly observed to be real, but the impact of things which aren't subject to our current limited ability to observed are thereby excluded (which is itself awful science). Almost anything ever asserted "has evidence for" it.] In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. [This is a false dichotomy. Religion and science rather, apply to everything. This distinction is therefore ridiculous. Is love "science," for example, or is it "religion?" This is a ridiculous question. Science is examination of observable (and not necessarily just "physical") things about love, and religion is an examination of the true meaning, source, and philosophy of love. It is not possible to analyze anything related to religion without taking some "stance on doctrine," no matter how small. This statement would also suggest that psychology, not being physical, will not be treated as science. The heart of both religion and science is determining what things are absolutely true (laws). The philosophical problem in much of this guideline is the idea of post-modernism, that there is no absolute truth. This is a ridiculous idea, when some absolute truths (e.g.,gravity) are known to be absolutely true. To have true "neutral" reporting, and good science or religion, this concept must be extracted from our thought processes.]
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. [This is an extreme error in judgment, giving a cultural group all the say as to what is true. "Mainstream academia," has in many ways become very faulty over the past century or so, and whether or not one believes that, it has definitely changed, and not always advanced, sometimes (as science dictates) proven wrong and adjusted its direction accordingly. Evolution had been rejected by mainstream academia for all time prior to Darwin's suggestions. ] For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. [You choose this example for effect, but conveniently omit examples where science has adopted positions previously deemed ridiculous by "mainstream academia."]
[Wikipedia is frequently soliciting funds based on lack. The concept of such a forum as Wikipedia is an honorable one. However, customers come to the market for objective truth and facts, not bias. Wikipedia is contemporarily widely perceived as clearly biased toward leftism, Marxism, progressivism, Democrats and the (mostly American) mainstream media. You should not only want this to not be perceived (in order to support the noble journalistic and technological endeavor), but to actually not be true. This is why I, and many, many others similarly situated, do not contribute funds, or provide moral support, though we value the concept.]
He who has ears, let him hear.