User talk:WisDom-UK/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from User talk:WisDom-UK. (BOT) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talkarchive}} |
{{Talkarchive}} |
||
== Spartacus edits == |
|||
Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spartacus_International_Gay_Guide&type=revision&diff=982810872&oldid=982807626 this edit summary]: I just wanted to make it clear that I don't think any of your edits are motivated by homophobia at all and share your disgust of Mr. Stamford. I also want to say I'm no expert in the subject matter, so apologies if I'm being ignorant here. |
|||
My only question regarding the edits is of proportionality and balance; the article as it stands seems to focus heavily on Stamford who left the magazine over 30 years ago, and does not go into similar detail about the 1986–2017 iteration of the magazine, which cut all ties to pro-pederast organisations. If it was an article on Stamford's editorship of the magazine then I could understand (and perhaps some of the content could be split onto an article on him), but the overwhelming focus on this dark period of the magazine can give off the wrong impression to the reader. Additionally it is very reliant on primary sources and seems a bit like a [[listicle]] in the bullet-point format; a lot of the information there could be summarised (e.g. a commentary on every year PIE was listed could be condensed to one sentence on the start and end dates of its listing in the magazine). |
|||
This is why I raised the article over at [[WP:LGBT]]'s noticeboard, not because I assumed any bad faith or homophobia on your part. You are an extremely experienced editor who seems to have a good standing within the Wikipedia community and I would not wish to disparage you like that. --[[User:Mondodi|Mondodi]] ([[User talk:Mondodi|talk]]) 14:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Apologies if I seemed, I was just a bit annoyed to see all my edits deleted in one go. I first came across the Stamford-pedophile links whilst doing some research on gay bars in the UK over the decades using old Spartacus guides. I was quite shocked (and depressed) to see the open espousal of pro-pedophilia sentiments in the magazines, and the support for PIE. As the other editor said, the 'gay=pedo' was an old smear tactic used by the homophobes who opposed gay equality. 99% of the time they were wrong, but a broken clock is right twice a day and in terms of Spartacus there was a clear link (note that PIE also infiltrated the civil rights group Liberty at the same time in an attempt to normalise their cause). |
|||
:Given the seriousness of the allegations, my intention was to document the matter with as much evidence as possible. Maybe this is excessive, but I do not think going the other way and just covering it in one sentence is good either. Maybe something like 'Spartacus supported PIE/paedophilia in issues 1978, 1980, 1981 etc' could be include, with a hatnote on each year with the relevant quote, thus keeping the information on the page but making the main body less list-like? |
|||
:I also divided the article into sections by editor to draw a clear distinction between Stamford and later editors and made it clear the latter distanced themselves from him. Not sure if my wording could be improve to emphasise this point more clearly. As for splitting off the info into a separate Stamford article, this is a possibility, though there is little information of Stamford himself and the only noteworthy thing he did was to create this magazine, so not sure if it is worth it. [[User:WisDom-UK|WisDom-UK]] ([[User talk:WisDom-UK#top|talk]]) 19:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:EDIT - I will copy the above over to the Talk page so that others can chime in.[[User:WisDom-UK|WisDom-UK]] ([[User talk:WisDom-UK#top|talk]]) 19:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, I have replied there as you know. Just popping by to say that I am sorry you are leaving Wikipedia (as you said on the talk page) and so sorry if I played a part in that. That was absolutely not my intention. I do not wish to whitewash history at all, which is why I agreed with the hatnote proposal you gave. --[[User:Mondodi|Mondodi]] ([[User talk:Mondodi|talk]]) 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Category:Georgia (country)–South Ossetia border]]== |
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Category:Georgia (country)–South Ossetia border]]== |
||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]] |
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]] |
||
Revision as of 17:01, 19 November 2023
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:WisDom-UK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
A tag has been placed on Category:Georgia (country)–South Ossetia border requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 13:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
The article Template:Border of Kyrgyzstan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Duplicate with Template:Borders of Kyrgyzstan
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KajenCAT (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of John Major
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Major you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of John Major
The article John Major you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:John Major for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Borders of Ethiopia
Template:Borders of Ethiopia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Borders of Malawi
Template:Borders of Malawi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Borders of Tanzania
Template:Borders of Tanzania has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for your efforts
|
COVID-19 Barnstar | |
| Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC) |
The article Coincidance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lack of sources, not notable.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HenryTemplo (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Embassy of North Macedonia, London has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NBUILDING.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Borders of Nepal
Template:Borders of Nepal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Reality Is What You Can Get Away With has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This topic has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources that I checked have either passing mention are do not cover this topic. Fails GNG and WP:NBOOK. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Borders of Croatia
Template:Borders of Croatia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)