User talk:C.J. Griffin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, C.J. Griffin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Human overpopulation

CJ-- You reverted my small addition to the overview in Human Population saying "weasel statement, unsourced." I can source it, but... am I still a weasel? I don't understand the animal reference. I only wanted to point out the UN projections are just that, projections, sans limits. Bystrc (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, you might want to take a look at the revision history of the article. As you can see, I didn't revert you. As for the animal reference...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article from Chris Hedges. I read his column every week. About 4 years ago, when I have first discovered his column in TruthDig, I sat down and read the entire archive of all his weekly columns in TD, going back to 2007 ...

The WP article contains a link to the book 'Brave New World Revisited' by Aldus Huxley. You can read the book freely online. I highly recommend it. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I came across that article yesterday and thought it would make a great addition. Activists and scholars on the left (such as George Monbiot) tend to focus on consumption rather than population as the source of man's destruction of nature (I think it's both myself). Hedges is the exception in this case. I've been a fan of his ever since that 3-hour interview C-Span back in January 2012. Great stuff.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the C-Span interview is very good. Did you get a chance to read Chris Hedges' books? They are excellent. I highly recommend all of them.
Yes, consumption and over-population are both important. Paul R. Ehrlich said in December 2012: "The debate regarding what causes more damage - the size of the population on the planet, excessive consumption of resources or unequal/ unjust distribution of resources [the wealthier countries consume much more resources than poorer countries] - is like a debate about which contributes more to a triangle, the base or the ribs of the triangle. You can not separate the three factors. If we analyze the numbers over a relatively longer time interval, we will conclude that the size of the population does indeed have a stronger impact than consumption. On the other hand, consumption and unequal distribution are also important aspects. If we do not change these three factors all at the same time, the quality of our life will change dramatically. Today humanity is delivering a serious blow to nature, but it is clear that nature will deliver the final blow."
(The full interview with Ehrich, in Hebrew, is here.)
Ijon Tichy here. In my view, all three factors are inter-related, inter-linked, embedded within each other and inter-dependent on each other. Each factor affects the other two and in turn is affected by them, in a sort of feedback loop, a reinforcing cycle, an escalation, a vicious cycle. See Complex adaptive system.
Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The only one I've read cover-to-cover was Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. It was an eye-opening read. I'll have to look into his other books. I agree with the Ehrlich quote above. I remember that Ehrlich's work was discussed at length during a lecture on overpopulation in my Sociology 101 class several years ago.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Wikibirthday!

Happy Wikibirthday to you. Happy Wikibirthday to you. Happy Wikibirthday, dear C.J. Griffin, Happy Wikibirthday to you! – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems with account on smart phone

Starting yesterday I have been unable to log into my account on my smart phone. I'm not sure what is going on, if it is the phone or someone screwing with my account here, but it bounces me to various IP addresses I do not recognize, some of which have been blocked in the recent months and years. I'm putting this here as a disclaimer: if my account is hijacked and someone starts using it for vandalism or some other nefarious purpose, It is not me!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Capitalism - your most recent edit

Thank you for your most recent edit (Undid revision 777317974 by Charlesjurden)

I think it would be helpful to explain WHY you undid the revision, since I am guessing that "Charlesjurden" did not notice that he was editing the text of a linked book, rather than content of the Wiki article. (Can one offer an explanation on an undo?) I am somewhat new to Wikipedia myself, and I had to look hard to find where in the article that edit took place. Thanks!! --Avatar317 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I should have done that. The reason I reverted is because the current version is far more comprehensive than what replaced it. It was not a constructive edit.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Holodomor edit

I'm watching as our respective edits on the same subject (Holodomor "genocide") are being moved about, but I'm not sure of what's going on. My initial edit was removed by Darkness Shines as a "copyright violation", but then my edit seems to have reappeared under your care a short time later. Since it was a relatively simply edit, I'm not sure what all the drama is about. Can you enlighten me? Santamoly (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's simple. I restored and modified the content (for tone) and included a proper citation that wasn't just some external link to copyrighted material. I moved the text to what seemed to me to be a more appropriate location given what was being discussed within the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Veganism. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. I've been a wiki editor longer than you have. Each revision was updated after talk to avoid edit warring, such as not restoring a disputed primary source or reinserting materials to the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft

wtf what bs "noone backs the materials" this here is evidence read it, it shows that trump and the media are liars it goes back to 2015 https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This might help: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

READ the links and check the dates ok that is all i ask THINK man THINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This obviously constitutes WP:OR. You clearly need to become acquainted with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. As far as I'm concerned, you appear to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and should perhaps stick to blogs and such.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

but i show the evidence and noone cares its all the media dosent think its true so its non notable so therefore OR so no allowed , also have you read the links and thought about them 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- dsprc [talk] 21:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What you did here is known as WP:DRIVEBYTAG, as you are not involved in the development of the article, and you have made no arguments justifying such tagging on the talk page.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hey, how 'ya doin'?

I have a favor or two to ask...

You placed a couple tags on Human impact on the environment. A lot of material was added, and it would help a great deal to zero in on the particular facts that raised your concern.

If it wouldn't be any trouble, please point out on the article's talk page which statements struck you as original research.

I'm in the process of tracking down supporting references, and it would also be good to know if they address your concerns regarding verification. If you have time, please give them a look, and let me know on the article's talk page if they support the statements to your satisfaction.

I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: The sections you added on human overpopulation and "Decline in non-human populations" are problematic. Both read as the opinions/thoughts of a wiki editor, not something from a cited source on the subject. And there are no citations, violating WP:OR. The latter is an aspect of defaunation, which has its own article. I'm thinking that latter section, which is only one sentence as of now, could be expanded with reliable sources and added to the section on biodiversity decline since they are related. I also noticed that the second to last sentences of the biodiversity loss section is ripped from the human overpopulation article (last sentence of lede). This itself isn't a big deal, but I try to reword sentences/paragraphs from other articles so they aren't verbatim.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will focus on those sections. There is a great deal on the web about overpopulation and its effect on the environment. As I find time, it will be reflected in its section. Concerning defaunation, I was not familiar with that term -- thank you for the heads up! The Transhumanist 11:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I have a question for you: is there a term analogous to defaunation that pertains to plants? "Defloration" redirects to loss of one's virginity, and also refers to plucking off all the flowers from a plant. But what about destruction or loss of plant species biomass in a region? What is that called? The Transhumanist 11:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not sure if there is an analogous term for loss of plant species. I'll have to look into it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for tag removal

After digging a bit, it became apparent that there is a vast amount of research on these topics (role of population, defaunation). As I find time, I may add more to these sections. So far...

I've removed the material you objected to above, and have replaced it with citation-supported statements. Please check it and see if this is sufficient for your removal of the tags. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 23:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it has been improved. I'll remove the tags.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Great Divergence Econmics

What was the reason for you to undo my edits on the Great Divergence page? What link said did not match was shown on the article. Next time would you please give a reason

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, C.J. Griffin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pentti Linkola

I removed the material because although it was sourced, it was WP:PRIMARY sourced, generally to affiliated or self-published sources, most of which are also not reliable. The trifecta of sourcing are: reliable, independent, secondary. These failed at least two and usually all three. If you can find secondary sources, please feel free, but quoting racist views by reference to racist statements on racist websites is poor practice. We should instead refer to secondary sources that describe these racist views and give proper context for their significance and influence. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am happy to take this to WP:RSN for discussion if you like. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what racist views are being espoused on the page? Much of what you removed were the authors own words from his own work. And primary sources can be used according to the link above: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The article appeared to follow this policy. This is why I object to these deletions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You're simply unbeatable!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Dear Griffin. This is just to salute your indispensable contributions in Holocene extinction and other articles. Thanks for the untiring work. Keep rocking. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rasnaboy.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi C.J. Griffin. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Alex Shih (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders

Hi C.J. Griffin, this is to invite you to a discussion at Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders#Standard for describing a "position". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Care to explain your revert at Talk:Central Intelligence Agency? Corky 13:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I clicked on the rollback prompt by mistake and then quickly reverted it back. My apologies.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Haha, no worries! I've been close to doing that myself as I'm not use to that button yet! I thought it was odd, and you didn't provide a reason so I thought I'd check in. Corky 17:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Jill Stein

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I want to make sure that you are aware that that page is subject to 1RR, because you made two reverts there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I was not aware of this. My apologies.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-communism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agrarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Quaternary extinction event long-extinct animal reversions

I understand why you reverted the redirect to the Holocene extinction article: perhaps there is some valuable information in the QEE article despite its low quality. But the previous edits were correct. None of the animals I removed from the list survived past 500,000 years ago, most died out millions of years ago. Their extinctions did not happen during the QEE as described in the article. Why revert those edits? Dogshu (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they appeared to be unhelpful and disruptive, in particular wiping out the entire lede of the article and replacing it with a redirect to another article. I didn't bother to look at other minor edits you made prior to that because it was pretty egregious, and used rollback to restore the lede. Upon further investigation, I don't have any objections to those relatively minor edits.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
ok thanks I reverted to that version Dogshu (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Wheatcroft figure of 5.7 million

He mentions the "Lormier corrections", that is our clue.

I went to Lormier p. 134 [1]. put his population numbers on an Excel spreadsheet. For the discrepancy use 5.7 million famine plus 1.4 million repression deaths and bingo you tie out to the ADK ending balance of 168.525 million on 1/1/1939. This is OR not for Wikipedia but it helps us understand what the academic crew is doing.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
I completely agree with you I just want to make sure that you're okay with me changing it to what you said

from Before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers who attempted to count the number of people killed during the period of Stalin produced estimates ranging from

to what you said


prior to the collapse of the USSR and the archival revelations, many historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher



I am still kind of new to Wikipedia learning how to do it properly I only made one successful citation contribution for the red army deaths in World War II Jack90s15 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks. And yes I'm totally fine with those proposed changes.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
Thank you for showing me how to do good on Wikipedia Jack90s15 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. And you're welcome.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi that takes the cake!

I have been on Wikipedia for 13 years and thought that I had seen anything until today when I saw the request to punish you, that takes the cake! Regards--Woogie 10w 18:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been here over 11 years and this is definitely a first for me as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to split Economic_inequality

Hello, I would like to split Economic inequality. According to this link the article is 202 kB and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests an article be split after 40 kB. Also, on the top of the page is a banner that is two years old suggesting the article should be split.

Since I am new, I would like to build a consensus first, rather than WP:BRD. To that end, I put a post on Talk:Economic_inequality and am contacting everyone who has edited the page in the past month.

Thanks for your time and please come down to discuss! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You recent MKucR edit

I understand the idea you are trying to convey by this edit, but I think the whole concept is flawed. The whole section presents a situation as a discussion between the authors who see common causes and country experts who emphasize a contribution of local factors and put these events in historical context. Instead, we need to explain the causes of mass killings in each three country (from the viewpoint of country experts), and then, in a separate subsection, explain the theories of those who see communist ideology etc a primary cause, and who see significant commonality (and differences). --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It sounds to me like your issue is with there section itself and not so much my additions, which if anything buttress the following statement by Michael Ellman which challenges the supposed uniqueness of famines as a communist (or more specifically Stalinist) phenomenon. I believe it is an important point which should be represented in the section "Debate on famines" as it exists now. I have no issue with your proposals though. You should consider a rewrite and post it on the talk page there for discussion.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is not with your edits. Actually, there are no "debates on famine" in general. Some (few) authors attempted to include all population losses into a category of "mass killing/genocide/democide", but that is just a minority view; importantly, they are doing that to advocate some concrete theory. Majority scholarly sources, and, especially, country experts do not consider famine as mass killings. The two exceptions are Holodomor (famine in the part of Ukrainian territory), which is a subject of debates; there are debates, and KR famine that seems to be universally recognised as a part of KR genocide. With regard to overwhelming majority of other famines (Volga famine, Great Leap famine), they are not considered as mass killing/genocide, although scholars agree they were partially man made. I am going to reorganise the article and propose you to join this work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. As the article exists now, I do believe a debate on famines section is important for two reasons. 1) to show that scholars (such as Wheatcroft and Tauger) disagree on the level of criminal responsibility that can be ascribed to some communist regimes for famines under their watch and 2), scholars (such as Ellman and Davis, among others) point out that other non-communist countries and empires also pursued policies which exacerbated famines, so the issue of artificial famines is not unique to communist regimes.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
You turn it upside down. Some authors (Courtois, Rummel, Malia) consider all famines as killing/murder/genocide, whereas majority of country experts interpret these events totally differently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Hi,

You have removed my request for better sourcing regarding the challenges to neoloberalism post-2008. I believe that we could still find better sources from better(-known) economists than the current reference (Piketty springs to mind, but the whole 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence would be relevant, I think.

Happy to discuss further. El clemente (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The source itself is a reliable source, as it was written by academics and distributed by academic institutions. Given this, it seemed to me to be a case of WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. I did however move the passage to a more appropriate section outside the lede and added proper attribution to the two scholars in question so it was not in Wikipedia's voice given it could be seen as an argumentative statement. I was hoping this would resolve the issue. However, if you can find other sources to include that would definitely be appropriate. I have not seen Piketty address this issue (the rise of scholarship critical of neoliberalism following the 2008 crash) directly but if you have that would be a worthy addition. Other sources there discuss the recent surge of scholarship on neoliberalism (e.g., The Handbook of Neoliberalism) but not in the context found in the statement.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Would you mind justifying your recent rollback? [2] 86.154.163.12 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede was constructed over a period of years, from 2015 to 2017, with much discussion on this very issue on the talk page. Therefore this is the Consensus version. It is already covered in the lede and therefore such edits are undue and POV. I’d suggest looking through the talk page archives before starting old battles up again.C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the talk page before editing. I aimed to convey the apparent lack of a consensus, both in the talk page and in the literature.86.154.163.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus formed among editors of the encyclopedia took place over a period of years. This is reflected in the archives more than the current talk page. The disputes over the term are discussed in the lede already in the second paragraph so there is no need to add any undue weight in the first. This has already been discussed at length.C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The Manual of Style states that "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." As it is now, the opening paragraph provides a specific definition from a single point of view.86.154.163.12 (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It was deemed sufficient enough for consensus earlier, but given the amount of discussion in the second paragraph, it would be more prudent to merge the material of the first and second rather than adding the undue materials in the most recent edit which were highly POV. Needless to say, it might have to be taken to the talk page before making any significant changes so as to avoid an edit war.C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point, I've added a proposal to the talk page.[3]86.154.163.12 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Page Economic inequality

Hi C.J. Griffin, just wanted to see if you would like to work together to fix up the page Economic inequality. I'm contacting you since you have actively edited it in the past month. I'm willing to rewrite sections to try to shorten and sharpen it, but I feel kind of hopeless doing it by myself. If you reply here or on the Talk page, please ping me. Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Seahawk01, quite a bit has been trimmed already. What I fear is that if we trim too much more, good material will be lost. This is why I felt obligated to restore (and condense) some materials from the IMF and their research department on the subject of economic inequality. But yes, I'm willing to work with you and others on the process of shortening the article but also making sure notable and reliably sourced content is not lost.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi C.J. Griffin, sounds great. I did see you restored some edits and thanked you for them. You can restore all the cuts if you wish. I'd like to work with everyone on making it a great page. If you would like to outline what is best and worst on the page, that may be a good start. Seahawk01 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Cuban Revolution History

Hey there!

We are a Group of students who have edited the section on Cuban Revolution by adding Information to the early stage of the Revolution. We were wondering why you deleted our additional Information twice.

Best regards

HistoryIBESG (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced (WP:OR) and poorly formatted. And I only see one revert on the history page. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, C.J. Griffin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amazon (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Tireless vigilance

Thank you for your vigilant watching and coping with Indonesian subjects over the years, have a good christmas/newyear season !! JarrahTree 00:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

btw you should give yourself a festive season gift, you should archive part of this talk page, it is a tad long... JarrahTree 00:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. And yes, I probably should archive some of the above. Hope you have a great holiday season as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I do lament having a good bilingual admin on the indonesian project, my Indonesian capacity reduces constantly, and every now and then there is a real need to take on the stupidities that creep in, very hard to do in english only when it is clear they are out of the water here on wp en. The problem with the politics of the 50s and 60s of Indonesia, and in particular Java, is that I used to have access to living people from that era with useful knowledge, but sadly they have died out. JarrahTree 05:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.J._Griffin/Archive_3&oldid=1048402373"