User talk:Pier1999

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Pier1999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to User talk:Binksternet. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources "RS"[edit]

The above is just a template welcome. I suggest you read up on WP:RS which is a [[WP:PAG|guideline]. I have long thought of it as the bedrock and foundation of content and why readers should not dismiss Wikipedia articles as they often do with comments like "Anyone can edit and put anything they want" or "You can't use Wikipedia in a college essay. It's not reliable." Unlike mainstream media, everything must be sourced with reliable sources. If not, we often get rid of it ASAP--especially in the most important articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually linked both academic articles and books and then the NY Times Pier1999 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just thought your argument could have been stronger if you had read up on that guideline, because I believe many of your sources were more higher quality and/or academic--which are among the best sources and trump mainstream media. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read up on COI[edit]

Also, I suggest you read up on WP:COI, which starts "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." When a new editor shows up very focused on a single subject with particular content they want to add/remove, it often makes other Wikipedia editors wonder if there is WP:COI. I'm not saying you do, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you are aware of the guideline. If you do have a COI, make sure to disclose it--especially before editing an article where you have a COI. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac[edit]

Clearly, you want to see content added to this article vis-a-vis Tupac's purported activist activities, but worry that your efforts may be reverted. That happens. I suggest that you develop content in your Sandbox, along with properly formated references, and only when comfortable, copy all that into the article as a new section. If it gets reverted - very possible - then start a new discussion on the Talk page, invite the person who reverted you and any others with an interest, to try to reach a consensus at the Talk page as to what can be said and what are valid references. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Activism for how to make a case for Art Activism, which I am guessing may apply to Tupac's lyrics? And for defining other actions of his as activism. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, anyway I have numerous academic sources on Tupac Shakur's activism, also on the cultural impact of his music (but I see that on his page there is already the section with the academic evaluation). I'll do as you said Pier1999 (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for his activism, befote the page reported that Tupac is a symbol of struggle and activism against injustice, but then in October someone deleted that part. Pier1999 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

against inequalities* Pier1999 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text that was added and deleted: "...and he is considered by fans to be a symbol of activism against inequality." The person who reverted it was of the opintion that the two refs provided in support did not qualify. If you intend to add to the article, I suggest doing it as a section in the body of the article - not the Lead (the top portion). David notMD (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this advice. I said quite a lot of the same here:

Talk:Tupac_Shakur#Activism

Except about the sandbox, which is a good idea for a new editor.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in reality it has been written for years that he is considered to be a symbol of activism against inequality. Then "by the fans" was added and then everything was deleted. anyway I will follow your suggestion, I will open a new section on his Wikipedia page Pier1999 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember[edit]

Please remember to follow WP:BRD. If an editor reverts anything you do, discuss on talk page and try to form a WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not saying you forgot this. I just noticed that some of your work got reverted and new editors often take offense and try to revert back, which is not a good idea.--David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I'll keep it in mind. Pier1999 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tupac Shakur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academics. 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) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]