User talk:Baker's Friend

Regarding your edits at Jack Baker (activist):

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a private webspace provider. Please note Wikipedia's biography of living people and neutral point of view policies. Edits which do not conform to these polices cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your reversion, Baker's Friend. Please consider the way the article is being written. It must be neutral, and please follow the format of articles. This is not homophobia. I have written 12 Featured Articles here, and four of them are LGBT-related: Ann Bannon, Stonewall riots, and Harvey Milk. I also wrote Save Our Children, which is tangentially related to Baker, I believe. I am willing to assist you with writing this, but such judgment-laden headings as "Courage" and "Trickery" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The article has a talk page, and I encourage you to use it in discussing the article's changes. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As Moni3 says above, your edits, particularly those making statements about other living people, are unnacceptable, and I've reverted them again. Please read the neutral point of view and biography of living people policies again before proceeding further. -- The Anome (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which part of "not acceptable" do you not understand? Simply perservering with reverting the article back to the contentious version, without making any attempt to conform to Wikipedia's core policies, is more likely to result in your being blocked from editing than any other result. -- The Anome (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the user is so new he's not sure how to access his talk page. An email with a quick guide may be the way to go here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Short of making the talk notification banner flash and emit honking noises, it's hard to see how else we might try harder to communicate. Clearly they know how to use Wikipedia's formatting conventions in some detail, suggesting that they have considerable prior experience of Wikipedia editing, so I'm not inclined to give much benefit of the doubt in this case. -- The Anome (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now added an inline comment at the top of the page itself, directing them here. If that doesn't work, we will just have to assume that they are non-responsive to all communication. -- The Anome (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Baker's Friend: OK, that's better. You're starting to edit the article a bit at a time. However, rather than removing the fact tags, could you please add references that back up the fact-tagged assertions? -- The Anome (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Baker's Friend: no, you can't just put your own assertions in "ref" tags, and treat them as citations supporting your other assertions. You have to cite someone else saying something that supports that assertion, in a form that has been published in an independent third-party verifiable reliable source, cited in sufficient detail that someone else can verify this. From the WP:NPOV page:


 * "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

-- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From article space: How do I communicate off-line with those who insist on rewriting history? LGBT is a contrivance of the late 70s, long after Baker graduated from the UofM. He was a gay activist, as were all of his pears. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then it should not attempt to pigeon hole history to fit the new grupthink.

Baker&#39;s Friend (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To Baker's friend: I've changed "LGBT" in the article body to "gay". This seems a perfectly reasonable change. Could you please respond here, rather than by putting comments in the body of the article itself? -- The Anome (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)