User talk:CharlesShirley/Archives/2019/January

Note
"This material is positive and we should be adding negative material about how this person said racist things" [my paraphrase] is not a good rationale for removing reliably sourced material from the biography of a living person. ~Awilley (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. It is your opinion. It is not necessarily correct and it is not necessarily incorrect. It is just your opinion.  However, there are tons of reasons that her high cheekbones comment should be in the article.  The most important reason is that it was her rationale for her beliefs that she was: (1) Indian, and (2) Cherokee.  The rationale was mildly racist and ignorant and readers of Wikipedia should be informed of these facts.  -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well make sure that you don't mistake your own opinion for a reliable source because it isn't one, and pushing unsupported opinions into the biography of a living person will likely get you sanctioned. ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well make sure you know what you are talking about. There are reliable sources that call her comment racist.  Now, you might not like it, but whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant.  On the talk page I quote a reliable source who makes the point, that you personally don't like, that her comment about the high cheekbones is based upon racist stereotypes.  Now, this is fact and you really should have known this already.  But clearly you did not.  You should do more research into the topic of the article before you provide your unsolicited advise.  You can to my page with personal opinions and that's all. If you had done any research you would have known that tons of people find her initial comments to be the worst in racial stereotypes.  Do more research next time.  You really need to learn about your subjects before you spout your unsolicited opinions.  - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that I came to your talkpage to opine and argue with you about high cheekbones and racism. I did not. My comments above are a warning about engaging in specific behaviors that are not in harmony with the purpose of Wikipedia. Feel free to ignore my warning as "opinion" but be aware that if you continue down the path you seem to be on now you will receive a WP:Topic ban from Elizabeth Warren. ~Awilley (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. I did read this opinion piece assuming that's the one you are talking about, and personally I'm very sympathetic to what the author is saying, but I didn't come here to discuss that. ~Awilley (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me help you once again. You did not need to come to my talk page and warn me about anything. I have not said anything that would warrant a warning of any type. I am have not said anything that reliable sources have not stated in the past.  You comments were and are unnecessary and unwarranted.  You simply do not like the opinion that have of EW's initial comments about her dubious claims of: (1) being "Indian", and (2) being "Cherokee".  As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma I can tell you that I hold those same beliefs and I will not apologize for them and I will not be punished for having those beliefs.  It is not your world and you are not in charge of it.  Now, please stop immediately from coming to my talk page unsolicited and giving me your incorrect opinion.  There is nothing that I have said which would support a "topic ban" from the EW article.  Your personal opinion is incorrect and only designed to intimidate me and frustrate me from expressing my personal opinion that EW's comments were racist, an opinion that shared by many reliable sources. Now, please stop coming here. I have not reached out to you.  You reached out to my talk page unsolicited. Please stop. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s a good article. It talks to the complexity of the specific issue and the issue of bigotry in general. Let us not try to simplify the problem or use it to make a narrow point. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Objective3000: Yes, it is just your opinion and you have a right to that opinion, just as I have a right to my opinion. You clearly don't like it but that's too bad.  I'm not going to change my opinion and I will not be intimidated into not expressing my opinion as Awilley is attempting to do. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just leaving some unsolicited advice, because I watch AJWilley's talk page. CharlesShirley, keep this up and sanctions will be applied against you. Read WP:RS, as the piece you are using as a source is unreliable. Do feel free to ignore my advice though. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LaGerald Vick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Brown ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/LaGerald_Vick check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/LaGerald_Vick?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)