User talk:Estheroliver

Welcome!

Hello Estheroliver, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Endofskull (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page redaction

I've responded to the question you posted at my talk page. Thanks! jæs (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language talk page

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. I don't post very often now, but, your haste has triggered my caution button, lol.

In the Talk:Chinese_language page you mentioned removing something if no evidence with one week was given. Would there be anyone who will edit the article within that time? Rather than removing it, place a citation needed on it, see:Citation_needed. Removing stuff may lead to it being reverted and you having a vandalism warning placed on your userpage, so the citation method is the best way to ask for evidence (or cast doubt on the statement) in the article as many won't bother reading the talk page, sadly. Dylanwhs (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Estheroliver. You have new messages at WikiDao's talk page.
Message added 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Estheroliver. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 05:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Estheroliver. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 15:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re:

Where did I claim something was vanadalism? The divorce isn't finalized, so she is still legally Ashlee Nicole Wentz. ℥^nding·start 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portman

My apologies. I didn't see that. I won't resort to a personal attack as you did, however. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing overlink

hi!. What's the meaning of this word?--Nhero2006 (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Nhero2006 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers and sisters

Hello, Estheroliver. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 08:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Chung

Does it occur to you that the reason articles may not note where a person grew up is because that information is not readily available in sources, compared to information on where they were born?

Where a person lived or grew up is indeed valid for inclusion, so long as it's sourced. Removing it, therefore, is not supported by any governing policy, guideline or convention of writing. Observing this is merely reasonable, and hardly doesn't really require personal feelings on my part, I assure you. See Natalie Portman, Jeri Ryan, Arthur Adams, and countless other articles.

If you disagree, let me know, and we'll have a consensus discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I honestly do not understand your last message, and on several accounts.

You say, "If this is true, we may very well challenge the thousands of Wikipedia articles that only state the subject's place of birth." Again, the only reason articles mention where the subject was born but don't mention cities where they grew up may be because in the editors who tend to work on those articles have not come across sources that mention this. The city of one's birth tends to be a commonly given bit of information in various biographical sources on the subjects, but cities where they lived, whether the same as the city of birth or not, is not. How you can "challenge" articles for not having info if no one knows sources that indicate that info? I'm sorry, but the idea of "challenging" an article for not having information that editors are ignorant of makes no sense. But where such information is available in sources, it is reasonable to include it, as with the examples I gave above. Others include Adolf Hitler, Jessica Alba, Ray Allen, Priscilla Presley, Gore Vidal, Christina Aguilera, Alan Keyes, Douglas MacArthur, and Michelle Bachelet, and a long list of more in this article. (Why you mentioned Natalie Portman as an example, I don't know, since the reason her article doesn't say she raised in the city of her birth is because she wasn't.) What should we do with the articles on people who were born on military bases but who grew up elsewhere, like Peter Sarsgaard? Not mention the city where they grew up, even when it's sourced? Why?

You say, "No one is really raised where they were born, simply due to the lack of sources." Again, I don't understand this statement. What do you mean no one is raised where they were born? Of course people are. Not every is raised in the same city they were born in (I myself am an example of this), but many people are, and Jamie Chung is one of them, and in her case, there is a source for this. I'm sure I must've misunderstood what you meant by this. Can you clarify?

You say, "Yes, it may be true she is not as famous as the other women I used as examples, but if she really has been on TV, I would think she would mention where she grew up and memories from that time period and such." I really don't see how her level of fame is a relevant issue, but the last part of this statement is a non sequitur. If she's been on TV, she would've mentioned where she grew up? How do you figure this? Yeah, she might have mentioned it, or she might not have. What does being on TV have to do with it? The point is, MTV usually mentions the hometown of each cast member of The Real World on its website, and that is certainly the case with Jamie, as seen in the cited source. Did you read that source? It wasn't cited at the end of the sentence that mentioned her birth and city of her youth, but it was cited at the end of the next one. I've since added it to the first sentence as well. The sources state she was both born and raised in SF, so I'm still not clear one what your rationale is for removing the fact that she grew there. In addition, it's highly likely that she did mention in the season premiere of The Real World: San Diego, because this S.O.P. when cast members are introduced in the season premiere (or later during the season, as with mid-season cast replacements). I don't recall if I ever saw the premiere of the San Diego season, but it's the case with every other season premiere I've seen. The seasons currently available for viewing at MTV.com including the Cancun, Washington, DC, New Orleans (2010) and Las Vegas (2011) seasons. Watch the opening portions of those season premieres if you don't believe me. So it's likely that she did mention it. In any event, why is its mention in her bio at MTV.com not sufficient?

You say, "I think Chung is really born and raised in SF." And yet, you're the one trying to remove the "raised" part. Why are you telling me you think she was raised there when you're the one objecting to mentioning it? Isn't this my argument?

I'm sorry we're in conflict over this, but no, I didn't detect any "attitude" from you at all. I just hope we can communicate so that we can understand each other's point of view, because right now, I'm just perplexed by your stated rationale for this. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I mentioned Natalie Portman was because her article clearly states she moved from Israel when she was three years old.

This is what you said:

All I'm saying is, most articles in Wikipedia note that the person was born there. They do not say s/he was also RAISED there. See Mariah Carey, Natalie Portman, and the thousands of other articles.

To this, I responded that the reason her article doesn't say she was also raised there is because in Portman's case she WASN'T RAISED there. It makes absolutely no sense to argue that we shouldn't mention that Jamie Chung was born and raised in the same city because, hey, look over here--Natalie Portman's article doesn't say this, when Natalie Portman's article doesn't say this because it's not true. Your reasoning, therefore, that Portman's article is an example that provides an idea for what Chung's article should say is a false analogy, and an incoherent bit of reasoning. Saying now that the reason you mentioned Portman was because oh, well, her article says she moved when she was three does not serve to camouflage this fact, because you did not first mention Portman as a way to make a distinction between the two, which would've been the only relevant context in which you could possibly have mentioned her, even in passing. Instead, you mentioned her merely as an example of someone whose article "doesn't say she wasn't raised there", which ignored the fact that there was a reason for this completely different from your reason for removing mention of this from Chung's article, which was that it's "unnecessary" because people an "assume" it.

You told me that Jamie Chung was probably born and raised in SF.

I never said any such thing. I looked through your talk page and her article's edit history, just to be sure, and the word "probably" never shows up once using my browser's find feature. Similarly, the quote "I think it is easy enough and enough just to say that Chung was born in SF. People WILL GET THE HINT and they WILL SEE that she was RAISED THERE." does not appear anywhere on my talk page or anywhere else prior to your the recent message you left on my talk page. So that's two statements, (one of which you present as a direct quote, no less) that you appear to have fabricated.

We do not give readers "hints" as to information. If it's relevant and sourced, then we mention it explicitly. There is no reason for a reader to assume, or for us to expect them to assume, that someone was raised in the same city they were born in. That's an unsubstantiated leap for which you have no basis.

Yes, this is true, and I told you, "But we can assume, if it does not note that the subject had moved, that yes, they were indeed born and raised in their birthplace.

You responded, "However, that is a very unfair statement. Sometimes, the subject in question has indeed moved in their youth, but there are limited sources or sources that have not been checked/read/discovered upon. So how would we know that their place of birth is where they have been raised as well?"

My response to you (basically what it says there in different words): "If that is really true, why do you challenge Chung's article in particular? Why don't you go around to every article that has a similar format that is very vague and only states the person's birthplace? Maybe they moved, too. Why is her article in particular such a big deal?"

What are you talking about? These quotes are a complete fabrication on your part. I never said anything about "assuming" anything about where someone was raised based on whether it is noted that they moved. I said that it should be noted both where a person was born and raised if the sources explicitly indicated this, and pointed out that the cited sources in Chung's article indeed support this, which has nothing do with an "assumption", as the only one arguing that we should assume readers will get a "hint" is you.

Similarly, these other two quotes by you are fabricated, as neither one of them appears on our talk pages before your last message. You even indicate that the third one is stated in "different words", but you use quotation marks in all three of these statements. Seriously, do you even know how to properly use quotation marks? They're for DIRECT QUOTES. You not only put quotation marks around statements of your own fabrication, and tried to pass them off as statements that were made prior, but you even attributed a meaning to my statements that are completely at odds with what I have actually said.

But now that you ask the question (even though you're claiming you did previously), the reason I challenge Chung's article is because it's on my watchlist, as are many others related to reality television, which you can surmise by looking at my user page or my edit history. It is not my job to, nor is it possible to, go to every one of three million articles on Wikipedia, but when I do come across other articles through casual browsing, indeed I do make additions to them if I happen to have a reliable source handy, something you can also see from my edit history. As an example I point you again to Arthur Adams, in which the various places he grew up was added by yours truly.

I already explained to you clearly that I objected to it because I believed that it was not necessary to state that she was born and raised there. Most articles I've seen clearly simply note that the subject was born in a place and that was enough; they were really born and raised there, and that was the end of it.

And I explained to you why you're wrong. I'll say it one more time for the cheap seats:

Where someone was raised is just as valid for mention as where they were born, whether the two cities are one and the same, or separate, so long as there are SOURCES that mention this.
Whether you do not see this information in other articles does not mean that it can't be. It may be because cities of birth are commonly found in reliable sources, particularly those that list information in summary fashion, but different cities in which the subject grew up may not be, and may be more commonly found in more in-depth sources, like personal interviews.
Where such interviews or other sources provide that information, it is reasonable to note it in an article. We do not "assume" anything about where a person grew up, nor do we leave it up to readers to do so either. We indicate it in the article, and cite a reliable source for it.

However, now you're telling me, "If this is really true, there is no MoS that denotes that, so therefore I think either format is acceptable. A lot of notable articles still say that they are born and raised there."

Again, this is a fabrication on your part. I never made any such statement, as this now makes the sixth false statement you've presented, the fifth presented as a direct quote, and the third you've attributed to me. I never said anything about MoS, or "either format" (whatever that means).

I've tried to discuss this with you intelligently, and in return, you've made statements of dubious reasoning and unclear meaning, ignored the points I've attempted to make, and pointed to statements on your part and mine that you simply made up. I suggest you try harder to understand other editors with whom you come into conflict, and learn how direct quotes and quotation marks work. As you've provided nothing in the way of a coherent rationale for removing that material, I'm restoring it. Do not remove it again, or you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. Nightscream (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was truly surprised somebody would write me a response that says that I need to work on quotation marks and that my summary of the responses was totally wrong. Are you serious? No one's ever been that concerned to say something like that to me; instead, they would say that that is not what they wanted to say and make their point.

You did not present those statements as "summaries". You presented two of them as direct quotes, which is what the use of quotation marks denotes, and even if we put aside the issue of wording, you even attributed positions or sentiments to me via non-direct quote/paraphrases that I never even expressed, and do not harbor, which is illustrated by simple comparison of my messages to yours. This underscores the importance of clear communication between parties, in terms of both ability and willingness, and your continued cluelessness and indifference towards this important element is your fault, not mine, as is your inability to reason or articulate yourself coherently and your tendency to backpedal and rewrite history by claiming that things were expressed that were not, as with your mendacious comment about my bulleted statements. When you're willing to admit that your ability to learn, understand and express yourself could use some improvement, maybe such conflicts will go more smoothly for you, and improve your sense of judgment when editing. Until then, take care. Nightscream (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Nightscream. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That includes in edit summaries. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]