User talk:Dwarm12345

Chinaman
I don't understand this. "Chinaman" in modern language is regarded as racially determinative. Also it is often used to refer east Asians in general. Why such information is not allowed to be edited in? Also, I looked up the history of this item. When it was first entered in 2004 by Cvaneg, he/she was well clear about its derogatory nature. However over the years, there seems to have been a conscious effort to down play the racial aspect of the word.
 * Whether you are right or not, you must not edit war to make the changes you want - you must discuss it on the article's Talk page and seek consensus. And you must not remove block templates from your Talk page while a block is still in effect -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

hmm, that seems reasonable. My newbie mistake. Can you remove my block so that I can discuss it? Thanks. Dwarm12345 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ OK, you're now unblocked - the page to discuss this is Talk:Chinaman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I am still getting a message saying the IP is blocked. Dwarm12345 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To address you on the substance, the meanings, uses and perceptions of a term are contextual. There is certainly nothing inherent in the word Chinaman which makes it offensive, as is the ideophone 'Chink' whose very sound form is derisive or humourous to an English speaker. Indeed, the words Englishman and Frenchman are common and not offensive, and the native Chinese word for a Chinese person is a compound of the words 'China' and 'man.' The vast majority of English speakers outside California (with its history of anti-Chinese discrimination) and outside of politically correct college campuses and media editorial offices will be quite surprised to learn that people take offense at the word.

But, since wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and not a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTCENSORED we cover all views and aspects of an issue. It is quite true that people have been taught to see the word as objectionable, and we note and explain that at great length in the article Chinaman (term).


 * Per your logic, there is nothing inherently offensive in ALL nouns, including K*ke, N*gger and so on. Yes, some people may find them humorous or pleasant, but that does not make others must feel the same. On the other hand, you already agreed that the contexts and the history in which the words were used matter significantly on how people feel about them. The word Chinaman is offensive rooted from the undeniable fact that through out late 19th and 20th centuries, and nowadays occasionally, the word was used frequently in racially discriminative manner and contexts, instead of "been taught" so. By the way, the analogy to Englishman and Frenchman is invalid unless you compare them to Chineseman. If you must use an analogy, the corresponding words should have been ENGLANDman or FRANCHman. Do they exist though? Dwarm12345 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Most importantly here, the page you edited, Chinaman, is not an article. It is a disambiguation page which simply links to all articles on the term. So, even if your edits saying that the word "is" offensive and that the other uses were also all offensive were otherwise correct, they would still be editorial text that is inappropriate to a list, which is what disambiguation pages are; lists, not articles.

The bottom line here as regards content is that we have to maintain WP:NPOV. The statement that the word is offensive is a viewpoint, with which some people will disagree, while the statement that the word is a matter of contention (that some people argue against its use) is an objective fact. No one, not even someone who thinks it silly to regard the term as offensive, will disagree with the fact that some people do indeed find it contentious. Therefore, we objectively describe the word as contentious and we report the fact that certain people WP:ATTRIBUTE do find the term offensive.

μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that assessment. The term is sometimes used in a derogatory manner, but it is also often used in a non-derogatory manner, and so I think the term "contentious" is appropriate for the disambig page - but as I say, we can discuss it on the Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you or do you not understand the difference between saying unqualifiedly that a word "is offensive" and saying that (certain people) "find a word offensive"?


 * When I said the word "it is offensive", it was only an expression of my own judgement, just like that I say "today is really hot". Maybe you prefer me to say "I THINK today it is really hot". Fine, I THINK this is not a big deal :) Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Given that recognition, i suggest you read the policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Consider further the issue of an Eskimo and a Egyptian on a sunny 76f/25C day in New York.  One will say it is hot, the other not, but no one will deny that their opinions differ.  That is how wikipedia works.  We don't report opinions as truth, but we do report the truth about opinions.


 * I suggest you ask yourself this. Is there an article Englishman (term) or [Irishman (term)]?  The very fact that an article about the term Chinaman exists shows the importance of the fact that some people find the term objectionable, and wikipedia's recognition of that fact.  Wikipedia handles that in a balanced, scholarly and comprehensive manner.  That's a great resource for everyone, including those from the world's oldest and largest ethnic group learning English as a second language, and native English speakers confused by the emotional reaction. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that you repeat your arguments from Chinaman (term) where you posted as User:Mattyjacky and as User talk:18.252.5.59 about Franceman and Englandman. If you have some published book that explains how this is the case, feel free to add a reference to it.  But I am not going to argue with you about folk etymology.


 * I warn you not to keep creating new accounts to avoid blocks, it is called sockpuppetry and will get you permanently banned. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by saying "repeat your arguments from Chinaman (term) where you posted as User:Mattyjacky and as User talk:18.252.5.59 about Franceman and Englandman" and "keep creating new accounts to avoid blocks". I am new to this and only have one account DWARM12345. Did someone also use that argument before? Just out of curiosity, how did you respond to it? Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * hmm, I actually went to Chinaman (term) and read some of the discussions you've mentioned. The two users you mentioned did have valid arguments (in my opinion only :) of course). There does seem to be some efforts to mitigate the derogatory aspect of the term (once again in my opinion only :) ). By the way, were those two poor folks banned permanently by you?

The best place to dsicuss specific matters is on the relevant article talk page. Rather than give you hints on how to game the system, some friendly advice. You are entitled to delete those ugly red warning tag sections above entirely - doing so implies you have read and understand them. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You had stated in a quite unfriendly tone that there is a difference between a word "is offensive" and saying that (certain people) "find a word offensive". What do you say about your own claim that "It is quite true that people have been taught to see the word as objectionable"? And just FYI, I did read the warning tags and tried to remove them but was told the block was still in place. I think Boing! said ZebedeeCan has unblocked me but I still cannot post anything on the talk page. Dwarm12345 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll send him a note.μηδείς (talk)

Block
Not sure what the block problem is. If you check your block log you can see I did unblock your account. I've checked the article talk page itself, and that's not protected or anything. What happens when you try to edit the page? What message do you get? Can you edit any other pages? Might need to seek help from someone else here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it seems to be working. Previously I had the message saying the IP address was being blocked and I could only edit my own page. I now see the edit command in other pages. However, there is still no link to start a new topic in the discussion page. Dwarm12345 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess IPs are auto-blocked for longer - that's something I need to learn about. I suspect there's also some sort fo caching/refreshing going on too. On the talk page, can you just use the Edit tab to edit the whole page? If that works, you should be able to add a new section manually at the end. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

talk page edits
Please place your talk page edits at the bottom of the section you are editing and not within another person's comments. If necessary, you can quote the comment to which you are responding. Interrupting existing comments makes it hard to keep track of extended arguments and who said what. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

New talk page comments should be added to the bottom of talk pages
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:List of ethnic slurs were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was simply shocked by his rudeness. Have the changes been reverted?Dwarm12345 (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source that was given with the entry originally did not reflect the information in the article. Although there may have been better routes to take than removing the entry, he was not flat-out wrong in doing so.  At any rate, I've added a source that verifies  the information, so all should be well now.  Let me know if you need any more help, and if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message, or just post a new comment to this thread, whichever you prefer. :) - SudoGhost&trade; 04:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still it shocked me that he even made such a move in the first place. As an administrator, he should have known better. Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he is an administrator. Regardless, as far as I know, he did nothing wrong, and I believe he had good intentions in removing it. The issue is now fixed, and because he removed it and it popped up on my watchlist, the entry now has a proper source verifying the information.  Personally I can't think of a better outcome. - SudoGhost&trade; 04:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Civil
You would do well to put some time and effort into learning the basics here, to study WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and stop attributing the actions of others to what you imagine must be their racist motives or actions out of distaste. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, Medeis, can you focus on the TOPICS under discussion instead? What you just said constitutes a personal attack! Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it seems like I'm butting in, but that isn't a personal attack. While he himself may or may not be guilty of not assuming good faith, it was not a personal attack.  I would advise that you read the links he provided above, and let it rest at that.  There's no reason to have problems between editors, especially over (what I suspect is) a perceived slight on both sides.  - SudoGhost&trade; 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Hi Dwarm, this is just to let you know that usually you shouldn't edit your comments after someone has replied to them, as it removes the context for other editors' replies. See WP:REDACT and the rest of the talk page guidelines for more info. Thanks. (Also, I'm not such a fan of smilies :-) in comments, but that's just a personal preference.) And you've probably noticed already, but I left a message for you at Talk:Chinaman.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, another newbie mistake. OK, no more :-) to you anymore. But what about :-( ?  Dwarm12345 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, I see you just changed your comment again. That is not a good idea, especially on WP:AN/I, and it could be seen as disruptive. Much better to use the preview button and make sure it is right the first time.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinaman
This is meant as a friendly warning, but it does look ugly. Please delete it with my blessing once you've read it. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Medeis, please stop using your scare tactic again. It was you who repetitively deleted the Ductchman entry from Wiki: List of ethnic slurs without any discussions. If you are a true scholar as you claim, please focus on the topic and engage in true discussion. Dwarm12345 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation
Based on a request at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, a sockpuppet investigation has been begun at Sockpuppet investigations/Dwarm12345. -OberRanks (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN thread
Hi Dwarm. This is just to let you know that there is a thread that mentions you at Dispute resolution noticeboard. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)