User talk:JamesStanley

regarding your edit to Genocide of indigenous peoples
Hi, i saw that you've removed a section from this article with a proper explanation! Thanks a lot! However, i recommend discussing the matter on the Article talk page as well because people related to the article might want to look at it! Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. ''Mass graves of children, still being found, is not "just" cultural. '' - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but simply stating that my edit has "conflicted with our Neutral point of view and verifiability policies" is not an argument. You need to explain in what manner my edits have done so. From my point of view, you have things the wrong way around. Including the passage that I edited out without any verifying source is already a non-neutral point of view. I'll draw your attention to the description of the section this even is listed under, which reads, "Event that entail the intentional mass murder of individuals on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or race, or death caused by the forced eviction of individuals on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity." The key word here is "intentional." Repeated investigation have uncovered intent to cause harm "culturally," but conversely have only uncovered intent to not harm aboriginals themselves. Nor has any evidence of mass graves surfaced. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it.


 * I think you should look into this. (he forgot to ping you) Yashovardhan (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also please Assume good faith. No one has any personal hatred against you. He must've been busy doing recent changes patrol which made him leave a standard template at your talk page without explanation. Also, always ping the user you're talking to. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would imagine I'm seeing personal animus, or assuming bad faith. I can't see any indication of either on my part. Observing that CorbieVreccan has not provided valid arguments or evidence supporting his changes doesn't imply anything about CorbieVreccan's motivations. Thank you for the ping advice. JamesStanley (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I used the warning template and customized it with the italicized last sentence. See also the talk page at Genocide of indigenous peoples. You are removing content without consensus. Looks to me like clear POV push on multiple articles. Prove me wrong: Back off on the edit-warring and seek consensus instead of revert-warring. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I'm clearly missing some important information here. Why is it perfectly reasonable for you to reverse my changes without evidence or argument to support it, but I'm required to somehow seek consensus? Your personal suspicions don't seem relevant to me. Feel free to prove me wrong and provide some sort of argument to justify your behaviour, because as of right now, there is none beyond your personal suspicions. JamesStanley (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you new here? You know how to ping editors. Take some time to read the editing guidelines and links we've posted for you. You need to learn how Wikipedia works if you want to edit here. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this conversation? So far you've been rash of accusations and easily demonstrable falsities. I've read the guidelines and verifiability policies. If you believe I have not followed them, you should be specific about how. JamesStanley (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And just to be clear, there are no "mass graves." There have been unmarked graves in cemeteries, though it's not entirely clear how long they were unmarked for. The residential schools go back as far as the 19th century and fatalities declined as the system moved forward, so the most numerously proximate graves tend to be the oldest. The decline in fatalities is one of the reasons it's extremely difficult to argue genocide--intentional genocide is typically marked by an increase in fatalities over time, not a decrease. I gather that you believe you know something this subject, but is fairly apparent that you do not. That's why I keep encouraging you to seek out evidence. You wont find that that consensus reflects what seems to be your beliefs. JamesStanley (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)