User talk:KindRowboat

Responding to message on User talk page - Potolozi
Thank you for your comprehensive message that you left on my User talk page. I'm not sure whether this is the correct way to respond. You are a sharp observer. I am watching the KwaSizabantu Mission page for vandalism. I must disclose that I am affiliated with the Mission. Currently there is a media war against the Mission. Of course I do not object against any reasonable criticism or negative publicity per se - that is par for the course. Nevertheless I object to slander. Craig Thiem is a known antagonist of the Mission and has inserted slanderous language into the article. I have then reverted those. I didn't know any other way to respond. Thank you for your suggestions - they all make a lot of sense. I am tech savvy but not an experienced Wikipedia editor and I learn gladly. Thank you for reaching out to me. I also want to thank you for your edits and bringing about a more neutral point of view - it is much appreciated. Is this the best way to have a discussion. If I have a question or suggestion about a page - in this case the KwaSizabantu Mission page - how do I go about addressing it? I have read your suggestion about discussing it on the talk page of the article. How do I bring it to someone's attention, like you, for example? When one leaves a message on the discussion page, it is almost like you are leaving a voice message. Many people never listen to those! I'd be happy to get more guidelines from you. Potolozi (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Potolozi


 * thanks for responding. Replying either here or on your talk page is appropriate. I know it can be frustrating when someone else is editing with a non-neutral point of view. To get people's attention on the talk page, user . You're more than welcome to ping me when you bring something up. Here are a few (hopefully helpful) tips:
 * If there is someone making edits to the article that you believe are bias or worse libel, refrain from editing it yourself. Bring it up on the talk page. I have the talk page on my watch list, so I'll see it when I login to Wikipedia, but you can also ping me. Disclose that you have a conflict of interest. This will actually help you because editors will know you're trying to act in good faith. Avoid calling the other user a name even if it seems minor (e.g. enemy, critic, saboteur). We always want editors to be civil with one another and assume good faith. Talk about the edit, not the editor. For example you might say, "Disclosure: I have a conflict-of-interest as a member of KwaSizabantu; however, I believe this recent revision by User:USERNAME is not a neutral point of view. The exposé makes an allegation that KwaSizabantu is a cult, but nothing has been proven yet. The investigation is ongoing. Would someone (?) be willing to take a look at this and make edits to bring the article to a NPOV? Thanks!~"
 * If you have changes that you'd like added to the KwaSizabantu article, then write those changes on the article talk page. Put at the top of your draft. Make sure to (a) disclose that you have a COI and (b) cite as many reliable sources as you can. An editor will review your proposal, suggest edits, and after consensus is reached, add it to the article.
 * I recommend making a user page for yourself. Feel free to look at/copy mine. Editors tend to be sceptical of new accounts because a lot of people have historically made new accounts and then made malicious edits to Wikipedia. A filled out user page helps editors know who you are and that you're serious about making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
 * Lastly, I'd recommend making constructive edits to other articles as well—especially ones where you don't have a conflict of interest. Giving back to Wikipedia shows good faith to other editors and builds up a good reputation. There's lot's of small ways you can start editing. See Contributing to Wikipedia for more information.
 * If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to reach out. The Teahouse is another place where experienced editors hang out to help newer editors. Thanks for reading! — motevets (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ON a possible renaming.
"Some", that's perfectly acceptable but what word would you use as it is extremely important to the current politics in the US. How would do you think it should be reworded? I admit it is a bit vague other then be appalling being akin to Mussolini's talk to the brown shirts, but give some examples to re-word it. I am an anarchist so you can tell what my opinions are largely going to be already, I personally despise both Biden and Trump, but state how it should be reworded for the better. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Vallee01, thanks for reaching out, and disclosing your bias/POV. I'll return the favour. I consider myself a democratic socialist. I generally favour Joe Biden in this race, though I would have personally liked to see a more liberal candidate out of the democratic primary.
 * w.r.t your question about the wording, I think the wording on the article currently is a good, factual, and NPOV. As editors of an encyclopedia, we generally want to avoid so called weasel words. My own opinion is that it's best to avoid any words that suggest a number of people holding a specific opinion unless it's a poll or literature survey done by a reliable source. "Some" is OK, but not great. I'd rather say exactly who said it in the article. "E.g. CNN opinion journalist Jon Doe and Vox contributor Jane Smith condemned the President's refusal to outright condemn white supremacy, instead saying 'stand down and stand by Proud Boys.'"
 * Let me know if you have questions or comments.— motevets (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Osman Djikic
Hello,

His parents were clearly Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), you can determine it from they names. The statement that they were Serb Muslims is unsourced and must be sourced.--Aždaja (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. First, I apologize, I didn't realize that I was stepping into the middle of a controversial topic that looks like it's been going on since the creation of the article in 2006. I don't have a lot of context on why people keep changing it back an forth, but it's clear there are multiple points of view here. Regardless, whenever an editor updates something that's non-trivial in an article, the onus is on them to provide a reliable source. If the source/statement is contested, then editors should seek consensus on the article's talk page. (See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) I don't see any discussion of this on the talk page, so perhaps you can start the conversation and obtain consensus.
 * I did some quick digging for sources supporting the Serbian point of view. Again, I don't have context, so I'll have trouble telling if the sources are bias/pushing an agenda, but I figured I'd provide them to you.   . Hope this helps. motevets (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You gave me sources from SANU and other Serbian writers, you're not neutral and the sources neither. They also didn't mentioned his parents, I talked about his parents, he maybe for himself felt like a Serb Muslim, but his parents were Bosnian Muslims which you and all other Serbian Nationalists can't denie. And btw "serb Muslim" is wrong spelling.--Aždaja (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please assume good faith with me as I am you and refrain from making ad hominem attacks. I am not Serbian, much less a Serbian nationalist. I didn't know who Osman Đikić was until I saw this page on the recent changes list while looking for vandalism and uncited edits. It looks like there is is consensus that Đikić was Serbian. If you disagree with that, I'd suggest starting a new topic on the on the talk page. Thanks for letting me know about the spelling. I fixed it in the article. Cheers -- motevets (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi KindRowboat. After reviewing your request, I have&#32;temporarily [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AKindRowboat enabled] rollback on your account&#32;until 2023-03-18. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)