User talk:Politanvm

Archives (Index)

0 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Scambaiting

Hello there, you recently denied an edit on the "Scambaiting" page due to me removing content just because I don't agree with it. I do agree with most of the article, however, when that article was first written, scambaiting was a lot different and more toxic, thus the comment about racism. However, few scambaiters (if any) are racist today and this article shames the entire scambaiting community, a community already riddled with arguments and battles. I'd like to see my edit added to the page. Thanks! Zachinquarantine (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zachinquarantine, it's probably best to make the case for removing that content at Talk:Scam baiting, where other editors interested in the article can weigh in as well, particularly those that have already discussed the content in dispute. Nonetheless, there are a few reasons I've restored the content:

• It appears to be well-sourced, with five different sources. I don't have access to all of the full texts, but it does seem that there's a verifiable racist implication in some scam baiting. To help your case for removing the content, you'll want to demonstrate either that the sources are not reliable, and/or that the sources are saying something different than what the Wikipedia article says.
• Wikipedia aims to provide "a long-term, historical view," (WP:RECENTISM) so your claim that racism is no longer related to scam baiting doesn't support removing it altogether. Instead, perhaps it should be re-written to reflect that the nature of scam baiting has changed, if that's what more recent reliable sources say.
• Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires that articles neutrally summarize how subjects are described in reliable sources, and that viewpoints are presented in similar proportion to how they're discussed in reliable sources (WP:DUE). In this case, the article has very little weight on racism, and is already very hedged ("some are motivated by racism"), and the next sentence says that a major scam baiting website bans racism. So it doesn't seem the article as written shames the entire scam baiting community.

If you still believe that the way it's written is incorrect, the best way to improve the article would be to propose revised text at Talk:Scam baiting. Best, POLITANVM ^talk 03:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm Name Omitted. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 2020 United States elections—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Name Omitted (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Name Omitted, it looks like we were both reverting the same IP vandal (12.127.117.138), and you inadvertently restored the vandalism. POLITANVM ^talk 17:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Lil Nas X

The changes made to the page are reverted. We have strong reasons to believe that this page is being managed by one or many, like many others of course, for personal interests. The previous editions of these pages are backed up and escalated for further scrutiny. Rawwbots (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)