User talk:PriusGod/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Welcome!
Hi PriusGod! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Stop removing relevant facts
Read WP:VER please, your opinion on the tit song is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6D:692:844C:D969:ADBE:B314 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That song made her famous. What is funny about the reliable sources that I have provided? You are the one who is doing vandalism here, not me. So I have reported you.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
Hello, I'm XtraJovial. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Lost Boys—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ignore the message above – sorry for the erroneous revert. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:IPhone, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Whoops. My keyboard I use at home isn't the one I usually use to edit and it doesn't have the grave/tilde key so it's a little unnatural - I'll get used to it PriusGod (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
shepherds pie
the text talking about 'Hachis Parmentier' its obviously earlier vandalism. its not a form of shepherds pie its a french dish, which is slightly similiar but completely unrelated. 2A00:23C7:5AD0:8F01:5405:17D9:C87:DACC (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please make your case for this on the Talk page of the article and establish consensus before removing that much content, unless you have completely incontrovertible, well-sourced evidence that it must not be included. The segment of the article is well-written and well sourced, and a cursory Google search shows that the dish exists and is at least visually and structurally similar to Shepherd's pie PriusGod (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The difference between...
... "the existence of the phrase 'alleged killer' means ('X killed Y' = an accusation)" -and- "articles named ('Killing of Y' = 'X killed Y') and thus ('Killing of Y' = an accusation)" would notably be that the latter is an accusation in Wikipedia's voice. – .Raven .talk 00:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I recognize that there is a difference, I'm saying that if the logic of the first half were to be applied to the second half, the article name "Killing of Y" would be unusable (or very difficult to use) as it would be a direct accusation, by Wikipedia, of murder.
- I didn't touch on this because my response was already insanely long and it was time for me to pack my work laptop up, but if anyone saying "X killed Y" is a hardline violation of BLPCRIME, it would be nigh-impossible to add any negative community/notable person responses to any killing, as they would all violate BLPCRIME, and that would completely blow any chance for NPOV on such articles out of the water.
- Thanks for bringing this to my talk instead of adding a tangent to the discussion - that section is such a clusterfuck already. PriusGod (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think one resolution of that tension in this case would be to allow "Killing of" in the title, because the ME ruled homicide, and rigorously exclude the (now) defendant's name — unless and until there's a conviction in court — per WP:BLPCRIME. Meanwhile, avoid the presumption of using "killer" or even "alleged killer" to describe him. (What if he gets simply acquitted? Where would we stand then?) – .Raven .talk 09:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think I might not have made my point as clear as possible, or you may have misinterpreted it - I'm not of the opinion that the readers' synthesis of the title "Killing of Y" and naming X as an involved party amounts to an accusation of criminality, because of the specific context of Wikipedia's usage of the term "killing."
- I don't think the disjoint of policy we're discussing exists, just that if it were to (by right of the word "killing" being inherently accusatory, which as far as I could tell is what the other editor was saying), it would not be resolved by removing the name, and removing the representation that any killing occurred would be the only way to resolve it. I would describe my though process here as an indirect proof.
- Insofar as I am aware, the word "killing" on Wikipedia is largely (but not completely, which is a big part of the issues with BLPCRIME) accepted to be neutral and non-accusative, which is demonstrated by the widespread application of the naming conventions proposed in WP:KILLINGS. This doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to plaster "X KILLED Y! X KILLED Y! but we're not calling it murder ;)" all over the article, just that the concept of naming X in connection to the killing of Y is not, in and of itself, an accusation of guilt.
- I have said a couple of times somewhere in this litany of discussions that even if he were to be acquitted, his involvement is so direct and so high-profile that he ought to be named anyway, not to mention the fact that his acquittal would almost certainly be made on the grounds that the killing occurred, but that it was justified. In that event, BLPCRIME would be unambiguously irrelevant as the section about his acquittal would indicate that there is no accusation of guilt with any chance for it to gain any legal standing.
- Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole explosion over this is going to result in at least an attempt to change BLPCRIME - I think both sides of this discussion take issue with how the policy is worded. The issue is that even that would be just as much of a band-aid solution as letting local consensus deal with loosely-worded policy. There may need to be a complete enumeration of what exactly is considered an accusation. PriusGod (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- One problem is that society at large (including our readers) may not share editors' sense of "killing". We're not writing only for ourselves; we can carefully define terms to our own liking, but eventually non-editors, not in on the secret, will read them with outsiders' eyes... and then the chances for miscommunication abound.
- The Killing (American TV series) — 2011-2014 murder mystery
- The Killing (film) — 1956 Kubrick crime story
- List of types of killing#Killing of other people — the great majority are indeed crimes.
- So to say someone is a "killer" is likely to, yes, "suggest" to many people that "the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime". – .Raven .talk 16:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- That would deprecate the usage of the title "Killing of [name]." Of course, we need to be careful how we use words like this, but if someone just reads the title of an article and decides what it's actually about without reading the article, that's not our responsibility (barring the EXCEEDINGLY irresponsible ones like "Murder of X" for a case that has not had a murder conviction, of course). PriusGod (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- One problem is that society at large (including our readers) may not share editors' sense of "killing". We're not writing only for ourselves; we can carefully define terms to our own liking, but eventually non-editors, not in on the secret, will read them with outsiders' eyes... and then the chances for miscommunication abound.
- I think one resolution of that tension in this case would be to allow "Killing of" in the title, because the ME ruled homicide, and rigorously exclude the (now) defendant's name — unless and until there's a conviction in court — per WP:BLPCRIME. Meanwhile, avoid the presumption of using "killer" or even "alleged killer" to describe him. (What if he gets simply acquitted? Where would we stand then?) – .Raven .talk 09:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Study Invite
Hello, thanks for patrolling edits and reverting vandalism! I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandal tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @PriusGod, thanks for signing up! I sent you an email to schedule the study. Talk to you soon! Tzusheng (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)