User talk:Isaidnoway/Archive 2

RFC 2 at the Brown article
Thank you so much for pointing out that I am not alone in thinking that Tom Nolan (27 year vetean) is a BLP issue. It is not "obvious" to some, but it still is. Jay Sterling Silver's comments are pure opinion, a "guest columnist" blog article posted by Jay Sterling Silver which is little more than an Op-ed piece. The only problem with it... and I'm not sure of the term... Silver is not criticizing McCulloch directly - it is "is that there is an inherent conflict of interests in giving local prosecutors so much control over the decision whether to charge police for allegations of bias or excessive use of force — and a compelling need for an independent special prosecutor to handle such cases from start to finish."

This is "cherrypicking" in a sense, but it is more dishonest because all context is lost and it turns Silvers into an probably unintentional accomplice in an attack on McCulloch. The words are "sort of there" because even the wording is pulled out of context and arranged to be worse, but it is not Silvers argument. Silvers makes a good argument which was ignored by Cwobeel and that is the problem which I have. Yes it is "cited with an inline citation" but it is so dishonest that you could not read the piece and come to the same conclusion as the article - unless you have well... an agenda. I'm sorry, it is an accusation but multiple instances of this really highlight the problem, but how is this not a perversion and BLP issue for putting words and meaning not contended by the "source"? I'm not eloquent, could you describe it better?ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri - It's just another example of the cherry-picking of sources and the quotes within to push a POV. The main problem with this tactic is that it doesn't provide the underlying point the author is making - it's not so much that he is criticizing McCulloch, but rather he is commenting on the need for officer-involved shooting and excessive force claims to be handled by independent prosecutors (which is a more valid and salient point that should have been included). It's my personal opinion that these comments were cherry-picked to show a negative opinion about McCulloch.


 * Or how about the opinion from the SCOTUS blog, the case the author is referring to in his blog is this one:
 * UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS - Respondent Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which is about loan and credit applications and presenting exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
 * The WP article, United States v. Williams linked to in that section is from 2008 and is about pandering child pornography. Are you kidding me, whoever inserted this content didn't even check shit like this. And imo, the blog author is misrepresenting the facts as well and then in turn, they are being misrepresented here to implicate wrongdoing from McCulloch. He opines that it is not required for the prosecutor to turn over all exculpatory evidence, which is only true if the prosecutor is asking for and recommending an indictment. That wasn't the case here, the prosecutor didn't ask or recommend an indictment, they asked the jurors to investigate the evidence themselves to decide if there was probable cause, therefore, the prosecutor was then obligated to turn over all the evidence he had, including the exculpatory. So just because McCulloch had the constitutional right to withold exculpatory evidence if he had asked for an indictment, but instead, chose to recuse himself from the investigation and asked the grand jury to investigate instead and let them look at all the evidence, doesn't necessarily mean that choice was wrong or it was illegal or improper, and btw is a perfectly legal use of the grand jury process, which the author fails to mention. The way it's twisted and misrepresented here in the article is meant to imply that McCulloch did something wrong or illegal or improper. It'll take some work, but I think the NPOV, WEIGHT and BLP issues can all be fixed. Isaidnoway (talk)  01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for detailing that one with good arguments. I was set to attack the more obvious facets of the source, but yes the misrepresentation of sources and improper use of sources which misrepresent is an issue. The Tim Nolan one is so obvious and basic that Cwobeel and Ran1 are showing themselves to be moving towards CIR. At this point, repeatedly explaining and detailing why the argument, policy or source is wrong is falling on deaf ears. Cwobeel restored an issue which both of us agreed were BLP problems after I made a lengthy analysis of why it was a problem and replied to it. My section was up at 4:21, he posted a response at 4:31 and restored the material at 4:33.
 * It is not one BLP violation it is three separate accusations which are all connected to logical failures which should have been caught at the WP:NPOV or WP:RSOPINION stage. The article at the Daily Beast may have had an alternate name: Prosecutor Threw the Case Against Wilson, but we don't get one sentence before a critical error is made. "Robert McCulloch could’ve indicted Michael Brown’s killer himself." and the second sentence "Instead, he barely pushed the jurors to charge the cop and allowed the unprecedented step of letting the officer testify."
 * Nolan begins his argument with the conclusion. All of the arguments to make that case are simply resting on unsupported assertions or outright false ones. Like "[Grand juries] are at all times completely and unalterably under the control and direction of the prosecutor." We know this is false. The entire paragraph is based on and backed up by logical fallacies and convincing the reader his opinion is right because he says so. "It had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence and everything to do with the prosecutor’s unwillingness to try the case in court and his reluctance to incur the wrath of the law-enforcement community to which he is so incestuously tethered." is a wonderful example of when to stop reading the article and others like it. Multiple assertions of absolutes and personal experiences to advance attacks - clearly not a source to use. Why Cwobeel and Ran1 are defending this suggests ignorance or worse. Examining other inclusions of "opinion as fact" may be easy, but I suspect many will be hiding. For an article under WP:NEWBLPBAN... this is probably par for the course, but I doubt there is enough evidence given the "first rule of thumb" explanation is not malice, but ignorance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh
Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown - I think Cwobeel has been reading too many coverup and conspiracy blogs. Cwobeel is now making WP:SYNTH claims with this edit with the summary " (Not on the first interview. specifying when Wilson first said that he made an ID)" - Considering the "first interview" was not released how would he come to this conclusion? I think there is a major problem here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. This is another statement by Sue McGraugh which highlights the term's usage. It is a descriptor of sorts, but not a legal term which gets used a whole lot because it is very rare. Investigative typically gets applied to the grand jury investigating and calling witnesses itself, but leave it to an actual prosecutor to know the ins and outs of the specifics. No need to stop at the descriptor now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I reported Ran1 to the noticeboard for edit warring after two subsequent warnings and continuing to revert and exceed 3RR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed
It seems like your personality and/or abilities have changed for the worse. I hope you're OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely fantastic. Thanks for asking, hope you're doing OK as well. Isaidnoway (talk)  13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Actually, I looked more deeply into a comment of yours and now understand what you were trying to say, which was alright, except for the interpretation of what I and CNN had said. So forget about my above comment. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My Boy (1921 film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect My Boy (1921 film). Since you had some involvement with the My Boy (1921 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2015 (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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Poster for 1925 silent film Clash of the Wolves.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Poster for 1925 silent film Clash of the Wolves.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Poster for 1921 silent film My Boy.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Poster for 1921 silent film My Boy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Need eyes here
Columbia University rape controversy, I am not jumping to conclusions, but some solid sources defending Nungesser were removed possible editor bias is beginning to surface. Valoem  talk   contrib  18:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Columbia University rape controversy
There is possible POV pushing, I do not want to jump to conclusions, but when comparing these two revisions an editor has systematic removed Nuggesser's defense including text messages which have been confirmed authentic by both parties. Sulkowicz has sent has annotated version to Jezebel which can be found here. Sometimes the best ways to write neutrally is to allow all parties to state their views plainly what do you think? Valoem  talk   contrib  13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads up, I didn't realize the AfD was over, I had been waiting for the AfD outcome because I didn't really want to invest a lot of time into an article that could have potentially been deleted. However, I will take a look and comment on the talk page of the article. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Glass lantern advertising slide for 1927 silent film A Gentleman of Paris.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Glass lantern advertising slide for 1927 silent film A Gentleman of Paris.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest
Hello Isaidnoway. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, thanks but apparently the administrator paid no heed to your view. He even closed it two hours after another editor had asked WikiProject Finance. He didn't even move it to userspace. I am discouraged and I feel totally undervalued here now...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Something funny....
Hi,

I just realized you full user name. I've been short-handing your name in my mind to "Iway". You're funny!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Still from silent film A Dash of Courage (1916).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Still from silent film A Dash of Courage (1916).jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Move request
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series). Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Isaidnoway: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Isaidnoway!


Happy New Year! Isaidnoway, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

-- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Discretionary sanctions alert
~ Rob 13 Talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Check your email

 * Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your email message. I just replied to you; take a look and get back to me at your convenience. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you JarrahTree 05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - sure no problem, I've always found when you're involved in a content dispute, the best solution is to go looking for sources to support your argument, instead of edit-warring over the disputed content (and also going to the talk page to engage). Those sources were easily found. I'm not going to get involved in that article, but it sure looks like the sources would support, at the very least - slave like conditions. Isaidnoway (talk)  06:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - those sort of arguments really are in the end counter productive - it is a received tradition of anthropology and history students at Universities in western australia that the slavery and indentured labour traditions went well into recent times and were well documented whether the culprits were interested in a written legacy or not... the state had the last convicts in the old systems - for Australia, and the conditions were monumentally unpleasant.  A close look at components of the following catch - suggests it is still occuring... JarrahTree 06:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I was surprised (and appalled) at the amount of sources I came across when researching this subject, there's books and journal articles, here's one from the USA - Australia Comes to Grips With Slave History from as early as 1991 in the Los Angeles Times. I thought this woman's remarks summed up the whole debate quite succintly as to the terminology that should be applied to this practice of enslaving adults (and children) - we object to the use of the term “indenture” to describe what happened to our people when they were first brought to Australia. It’s a weak word that does not express the real truth of the physical and cultural theft of human beings. Isaidnoway  (talk)  06:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup - scratch Australian or similar colonial outposts of the empire, and it's there... JarrahTree 07:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=863654291&diff=prev reverted] my fix to Alpaca.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.
 * Yeah, I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors as well, and fix those big red error in the articles. I can't believe I'm responding to a stupid bot. Never mind. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion you previously took part in
A discussion you previously took part in, at Ron Stallworth, has spawned another attempt by an editor to force his scan of a yearbook picture onto the page, at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ron_Stallworth#High_school_yearbook_image_in_Early_life_section? this new discussion]. As your previous response was well-thought-out and cogent, I thought you might want to weigh in on this one as well. Thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Natural Born Pranksters.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote in Tennessee Tax Revolt
Sorry, I'm not sure how to go about tracking down your email address and don't use email very much myself. The quote you deleted from a ref in your recent edit was providing context for an excerpt in the body text where the founder of this organization essentially made a wink-wink statement that "Thankfully we haven't had to [resort to] violence [yet]". Since that's quite an inflammatory statement I strove to provide as much context around the quote as possible and the video in which he made this statement is no longer available online—the entire hosting site seems to have shut down. So, would you mind if I restored the quote? Thank you for clearing out the ref errors. ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 20:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Restoring it as a note looks great, thank you! -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 21:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding language.
Hello could you please add language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%E1%BA%A7m_H%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_Tower#References to https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A1p_Tr%E1%BA%A7m_H%C6%B0%C6%A1ng Bonthefox3 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ - I am not a language expert. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)  ⋆｡°✩🎃✩°｡⋆