User talk:Federales

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston bombings
Rather than have this just me vs you, I've brought this up for third opinion(s) at the BLP noticeboard. You can state your case at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, if you'd like. Hopefully we can come to some sort of compromise which suits you, me and policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Blanking of whole sections
Please see the WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN editing policies. When a whole section is blanked, you must explain why each fact is being removed, or at least make them available at the talk page for someone else to review the removal. Diego (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fictional requirement is fictional. I explained the edit adequately.  Federales (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not acording to Burden, no. "Trivia" is not a reason to remove stuff, because Wikipedia is not paper and it doesn't have practical limits on the amount of content it can hold. And WP:PRESERVE is not fictional, it's a Wikipedia policy. Diego (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say PRESERVE is fictional. It's your interpretation that's fictional.  Federales (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of "preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page" is my interpretation? Diego (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is fictional because of the parts you are ignoring: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Before I touched it, 43% of the article consisted of references to obscure nonsense - that's cruft, it's undue weight and it's irreparable, given the state of the balance of the article.


 * Also, what's fictional is the part where you think a trivia section is "reasonable content", and the part about all of that cruft belonging in a "finished article".


 * I would expect somebody who is interested in article improvement to maybe reinsert, oh let's say, maybe the references to the Beatles, Frank Zappa and George Straight... you know, stuff that regular people might find interesting. I probably wouldn't have objected to a judicious, measured response.  Instead, you bulk-reverted.  It seems you are more interested in perverse adherence to a selective interpretation of policy, but not if it involves any actual, you know, editing.  Federales (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good editing takes time, and bulk deletion gets in the way of it. "It's irreparable" is a poor excuse. Bad content shouldn't need to be fixed right now, on the spot by one single editor; and you admit that the Beatles, F.Zappa, George Strait... mentions would probably belong in a finished article, but you denied any other editor the possibility to find them and source them at a later time. That is not fixing the article, and is not acceptable behavior - if you want to bulk delete content, you leave a mention of it at the talk page, full stop. That's the reason WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE are policies, and why even BURDEN warns against blanket removals of whole sections (when there are no BLP concerns) and exhorts you to source the content yourself before thinking of removing it. If you don't want to find the sources yourself, you must leave a trace for other editors to do the editing later. Diego (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop cherry-picking. "It's irreparable" is a valid reason for removing content, per the policy that you are tendentiously misinterpreting.  I didn't say certain mentions belong in the article, I said that I wouldn't have objected had you reinserted them.  WP:BURDEN states clearly that the burden rests on the editor who inserts material - that's YOU.


 * OK, so now there has been mention made on the Talk page. Since that seems to be the only issue here with even a hint (albeit, highly questionable) of legitimacy, perhaps it's time for you to go away and leave me alone.  Federales (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My edit to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies
It wasn't a WP:BITE. But it was a stuffup by me. I accidentally hit the Rollback button rather than Undo. Had I done the latter, I would have added an Edit summary explaining that the changes appeared to involve interpretation and commentary, and were unsourced.

I'm still uncomfortable with the language used, but won't make any further changes at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a highly plausible explanation and it's easy to see how that could happen.  Frankly, I wasn't thrilled with the exact wording of the other user's edit myself, but I think it did tend to make the article more precise than it was before.  Sadly, it's been undone in ham-fisted fashion yet again, by someone else. Federales (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Blue is the Warmest Colour
I reverted your reinstatement of the link because when you posted a comment on the Talk page 1 minute after I did, you accidentally deleted my rationale (don't worry - I've done that myself). Now that my rationale is up, please note it and its recommendation before reinstating the link. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seydoux has now confirmed at a Cannes Roundtable that the scene was simulated: . I don't want to start an edit war so I'll let you remove it as we now have a "horse's mouth" statement in reliable media that it's simulated. I'm aware this is opposite to the source you cite quoting the same actress, but that creates enough of a "reasonable doubt" to leave it off the list. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Far right politics
I will add back the reference to inequality in far right politics which you deleted. Please discuss on the talk page at Talk:Far right before deleting again. TFD (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reference. Federales (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the talk page at Talk:Far right. TFD (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Belchfire
From your edits seems you are a sockpuppet for belchfire. Resaltador (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Baden-Powell
Please take your concerns to the talk page, where it has already been extensively discussed and consensus gained to keep the present wording. Jeal is a major biographer. His book on B-P is the most recent and the most professional. It is probably the only neutral biography as all the others were written by Scouters trying to glorify him for the members of the Scouting movement. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeal's prominence is all well and good, but the material itself is pure speculation. It's Jeal's theory, not fact.  Federales (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is reported as Jeal's theory. I would not say it is pure speculation, as it is well argued by Jeal. It also builds on the piece in "Eminent Edwardians" on B-P. This is currently reference 48. This was discussed in more detail a few years ago on the B-P article, but the section was reduced in size after a lot of discussion. B-P's sexuality needs to be addressed as Jeal's biography will be the standard biography for many years. There is also a lot of speculation about this and we would be remiss to not address it properly. I added a new reference to the talk page a few months ago. However, we are not giving undue weight to it. As I indicate above we spent a lot of effort to reduce the size of the paragraph and we finally got a consensus. All that discussion is on the talk page. If you want to make changes you need to study the talk page and make suggestions there. Otherwise those of us who battled to get that consensus will continue to revert removal of this section. Have you read Jeal, and Rosenthal? I also recommend Jeal on David Livingstone and on Henry Morton Stanley to get an idea of Jeal's professionalism in writing biographies. I would also comment that the section by Block in the book edited by Block and Proctor needs be studied carefully. Recently there have been several edits to the Sexuality section that have been reverted because they are not supported by that reference. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying is it "well argued" is just a red herring. If it's not supported by evidence then it's speculation, period.  Baden-Powell's sexuality "needs" to be covered?  Uh, why?  Because somebody theorized that he may have been gay?  That's a very weak reason, but that's seems to be essentially what you have to offer.  But unless his sexuality figured prominently in the public narrative of his life, all we're doing is saying "LOOK! Here's a famous dead person who might have been gay!"  At this point, that's pretty much the kind of coverage you are arguing for.  It's tacky, and it's beneath Wikipedia (or, at least it should be). Unfortunately, we see a lot of this sort of thing, and it's usually fought for pretty hard by certain editors. Federales (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to present the reasons that were used earlier and perhaps over-simplified them. I also tried to get you to read the sources, but I get a strong impression that you have not done so. You are correct that sometime certain editors with a homosexual agenda fight hard to keep unacceptable material. That was the case here earlier but he was shown the door and the full article on the sexuality of B-P was deleted. It is not the case now. The consensus was reached by editors who are respected members of the wikipedia community. I suggest that you read the sources and then engage with these editors on the talk page. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The fringe theory tag is all very well. Maybe it will improve the level of discussion. But what is the mainstream view and do you have a source for it that carries the weight of the most important biography of B-P? Then we could add it and remove the fringe theory template. And talking of ownership as the tag does, I suggest you watch User:RobinClay. The user name suggests a strong conflict of interest regarding B-P. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see WP:OWN behavior by several users. Federales (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Federales. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IRS survey statistic.The discussion is about the topic List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong
My edit at Sheryl Sandberg was NOT disruptive. Rather, it's 100% true that "Jewish" is NOT an "ethnicity". It's a trans-ethic religion and in some instances a cultural identity, but it's NOT an ethnicity. Here is a link pointing to EXPERT opinion, which validates my position. Please read it and educate yourself. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes absolutely no difference whether you are right or wrong about the point you are trying to make - when you continually repeat the same edit against a consensus of other editors, that IS disruptive behavior. Please knock it off. Federales (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Continually" is a gross and false exaggeration. From time to time, weeks apart, I have comeback and made that edit. And there is NO SUCH THING as stasis of consensus. If you disagree with my occasional edits, then you are obligated to hash it out with me on the talk page there -instead of making false accusations. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Learn policy. Federales (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of policy and have been on this wiki off and on for 10 years. Why don't you have the guts to dialog on the talk page? I have sourced my position to a reliably sourced expert. In contrast, you offered nothing but threats and bullying. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard Incident
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Roscelese behavior. Thank you. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I endorse your complaint. While I am not optimistic that any meaningful action will result, I have proposed a course of action that I feel would be the best for the encyclopedia. Federales (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Re press template
Is there another template you think I should use? I'm unaware of a similar template for non-press mentions so I was just doing the best I could, but it took me ages to track down the press template, so there may well be a more apt one lurking out there somewhere. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked but I couldn't find one. (I would have preferred simply switching to the correct template, if one had been available.) I'm not against making some mention of your discovery, but I do feel the Press template isn't quite the correct vehicle for that. Federales (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Men's rights movement seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice: Men's rights movement topic probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''-- Cailil  talk 23:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)