User talk:70.177.197.217

December 2023
Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nigel Ng, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * citations added 70.177.197.217 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The citations do not support the text. Only one of them was even a criticism, the rest were just random articles about the guy. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear he's a subject of criticism; that's why the article has a large section on his negative reception, including the line "The accent Ng uses for the Uncle Roger character has received criticism for perpetuating negative stereotypes about Asians, and his act has been compared to a minstrel show". It is not the place of Wikipedia to say in objective speech whether those criticisms are right or wrong; that's why it says "has been compared to", not "is". Hence your change to the lead was inappropriate. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The minstrel show article reference defines that particular form of entertainment in detail, and its is definitional where the Uncle Roger act is concerned.  The references that make this connection also focus on the common features to minstrel acts and the Uncle Roger act. Whether minstrel acts are good or bad is certainly a matter of opinion, and this opinion is represented in the criticism section, but there's little ambiguity around whether the act belongs to the minstrel idiom. 70.177.197.217 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In the four references you've attached, the word "minstrel" does not appear once. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what article you're referring to. If there is one somewhere claiming to be able factually define Ng's work in the way you're describing, that would still not be grounds for the edit in question to the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article, for one thing. But more crucially, to be able to say something like that in Wikispeak, it would need to be the consensus of reliable sources, not one article you (or anyone else) believe to be very well-argued. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Nigel Ng, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Nigel Ng, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * First, Ng's character is not neutral. It is a specific depiction of harmful racial stereotypes for laughs.  An accurate, and not whitewashed, account of this must recognize the racialized nature of his character.  Second, there are volumes of criticisms of this particular racism and bias, and given your bias toward whitewashing I'm not so sure you're particularly well-qualified to arbitrate what is "poorly sourced."
 * I will suspend further edits, but only because you are misusing your position to communicate threats. 70.177.197.217 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a position. I'm not an administrator, I'm just another user.
 * The simple rule on Wikipedia is that edits must be sourced. This is not a website that contains analysis or commentary from our volunteer editors; it contains content summarised from reliable sources.
 * given your bias toward whitewashing I'm not so sure you're particularly well-qualified to arbitrate what is "poorly sourced."; at no point have I claimed specific qualification to know what is well or poorly sourced, or either the power or inclination to arbitrate. But I do not need any of those things to observe you have not provided a single source for the content you want to add. That is a very, very low bar; if you can provide one half-decent source that describes it as a minstrel character, I (and I imagine most other editors) would have no problem adding that to the page. But you haven't done that. So you'd probably be better off finding such a source rather than casting aspersions on me. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)