User talk:Politikundtheorie

Welcome!

Hello, Politikundtheorie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wendy Brown (political scientist)

Hi. Thanks for your good faith edits to the Wendy Brown article but please try to remember all articles on Wikipedia should be comprehensible to as many editors as possible. We don't all hold PhDs nor are we all familiar with gender theory. Please remember not to include POV text OR synthetic text or original research and that text must be cited from what are considered to be reliable sources. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Quis separabit?. I did my best to reduce jargon and to make the content of the previous entries more comprehensible. If there are further issues with the content as it stands I would be more than happy to edit for further clarification and simplification of terminology in political theory and gender theory. Best, Politikundtheorie Politikundtheorie (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

June 7, 2017

Dear Quis separabit?,

As you will see, I "undid" just one of your most recent edits to the page for Wendy Brown. This edit moved a long quote from a footnote into the main body of the article. I did this not out of malice of any kind. I simply do not think the quote belongs there. Here are a number of reasons:

1 The quote is from the magazine "The Nation" and was written as a kind of polemic for this (public and political) readership. It therefore does not have the same kind of status as Brown's numerous publications (in books and articles) that intervene into important debates in feminist theory. (This is, after all, an article on a political philosopher and section entitled "Thought and Overview of Work.")

If this is not convincing, I hope some of the following points might be, for the seem to be even more important considerations to me:

2 The quote is from 1990, five years before the book States of Injury (1995) was even published. It therefore should not be tacked on to the end of a section that is dedicated to Brown's 1995 book. This neither makes sense as a way of organizing the information in an academic article, nor does it make sense in an encyclopedic entry. Moreover, the citation and reference for this quotation does not have a link to the original magazine article, which means that it is impossible for someone to click on and read the piece to understand its context -- and most importantly, the ways that it does or does not correspond to the more developed positions articulated in States of Injury (1995).

3 The quote is best characterized less as an argument of her own than as an ad hominem and polemical attack on MacKinnon. This does not disqualify it as a possible Wikipedia entry, of course. But it would be better placed under a section on Debates or Interlocutors or something of the like. Now that I think about it, the quote would best fit under a "Criticism" section on MacKinnon's page. (I could place the quote there, where it would seem more fitting.

Thank you, Quis separabit?, for the Wiki welcome, for your previous suggestions, and for this edit. I hope that these are convincing reasons to either keep the quote in a footnote or, if it seems better, to delete it from the page altogether and place it elsewhere -- under debates in feminism or under the MacKinnon page.

Best, Politikundtheorie (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Politikundtheorie, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Michel Feher have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

March 2018

Part of your addition to Saba Mahmood has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please stop editing Saba Mahmood because the very quick look I had made it appear there is no policy-based reason for continuing to revert. I left a message at User talk:Ysgp. The next step would be to either request page protection at WP:RFPP or report the edit warring at WP:AN3. All editors involved in an edit war may be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much your warning concerning the Saba Mahmood page but there is no policy-based reason for your censorship of the information. Your persistence in censoring relevant information and your misrepresentation of facts and policies suggest a personal interest in the issue, which is unethical. Ealbayrak (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC) EAlbayrak (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Politikundtheorie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, it just came to my attention that I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of another account, which is not true. This happened sometime after I warned two users for engaging in an edit war, one of whom I am somehow accused of being a sockpuppet for User:Nowhereian. The other user, Ealbayrak, was blocked for continuing the edit war; this user has been posting false and unfounded material on the Saba Mahmood page since the day this person passed away. The page was then frozen, and only now do I see that my account has been blocked, though for a different and incorrect reason. I am a scholar of issues the author of this page also worked on, and am thus familiar with her work. Since Saba Mahmood passed away, I have been adding informative content to the page so that those wishing to learn about the author's life and work have easy access to this content (see my contribution history). Many other users have done the same for obvious reasons, none of whom are related to myself or my account. If we have been posting at the same times and on the same page, this is not coordinated but happening for clear and obvious reasons. I have also deleted unfounded attacks on the author's page (inserted under the section heading *Wikileaks*) posted by various users who -- for reasons I do not understand and can find no evidence for -- are trying to insinuate that Mahmood supported the Erdogan regime in Turkey. These users include User:Ealbayrak), User:Smahmoodealbayrak, and User talk:Ysgp. I am a semi-frequent user of wikipedia, but am no veteran. I just learned about the category of sockpuppets, and if anyone is a sockpuppet here, it is these individuals. From what I can tell, User:Bbb23 ran a Checkuser check on my account and then labeled me a sockpuppet. I would like to know on what grounds this accusation was made, and would also request that the same check be run on the likely candidate for the sockpuppet label, Ealbayrak. If admins who have witnessed this user's behavior (including the massive messages they left on my talk page and the conspiratorial accusations they left on the Saba Mahmood talk page) would be willing to intervene here, I would ask to be unblocked so that I can engage in a dialogue to ensure that only true, informative, and relevant content be included on the page. High level users who have helpfully intervened on this page and could potentially watch it include User:Canterbury Tail, User:JJMC89, and User:Bbb23. Thank you

Decline reason:

In addition to the checkuser evidence found by User:Bbb23 I have reviewed the behavioural evidence, and I find it convincing evidence that this account has been run by the same person as the account "Nowhereian". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Politikundtheorie (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)