User talk:Malduf

Welcome!

 * }

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Todesfuge has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h4BaKs9ccI. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Rainer Maria Rilke do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rRV6L5YFJY. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Rainer Maria Rilke do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Your edit here to Rainer Maria Rilke was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rRV6L5YFJY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

August 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wolf-whistling, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wolf-whistling, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your email: First, the usual procedure on Wikipedia is to message someone on their talk page rather than by email unless the information is extremely sensitive (not the case here). Secondly, here is the problem with your source. It is one woman's opinion, not "some women" or "not every woman", or "feminists" as your edit states. That is misrepresentation of a source. If you want to make an edit that pertains to "some women", "not every woman", "feminists", or "others", you need to cite a source that actually provides evidence about those groups, not just one woman's opinion. Also please don't mark such edits as minor; read WP:MINOR. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have very little experience with making changes in Wikipedia so I appreciate your help with the various protocols.

I'd like to request that you revert the reversion of my suggested changes, based on the following sources, which I think amply support the contention that there are still many women who don't really care about wolf whistles, may actually welcome them, and certainly don't see it as sexual harassment.

[UK government site] https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/wolf-whistling-compliment-and-just-bit-harmless-fu/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636135/Why-women-like-being-wolf-whistled-at.html

Two of the original sources depend heavily on the work of a small feminist organization in the UK called "Hollaback." The following source (which I am not proposing for inclusion but merely as background) establishes the feminist credentials of the founders.

If my understanding of the guidelines is correct, then I think these additional sources support my proposed changes. I welcome your feedback.

Thanks! Malduf (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot (nor can anyone) restore your edit based on citations on your talk page. Citations belong in the article. Some problems: Above you refer to "the following source". What source? Secondly, the second source you link above is another opinion piece based on one person's opinion. It has the same problem as the citation in your edit. The first link above might be more promising, depending on the wording of your edit. Let me suggest a couple of things. Write your proposed edit on the article's talk page based on that source. That will allow other editors to comment if they wish. Second suggestion: keep it concise and very much on point, per WP:WEIGHT. One brief sentence, or even a phrase, should be sufficient. And don't stray from the content of the source by suggesting information that is not there (e.g., "some women", "especially feminists"). Wikipedia reports what sources say; it does not interpret what is said. Sundayclose (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. I learn something new with each exchange. As a frequent daily user of Wikipedia I have admired its neutral point of view policy for a long time. I'm assuming the basis of a neutral point of view would mean that each submission for a particular topic is judged by exactly the same criteria.

I want to clarify my understanding of this before I resubmit changes for this entry on my Talk page. For example, of the first two links critical of wolf whistles (the third is a dead link), the first is a purely op-ed piece by one woman, including her personal narrative. There is no real data. The second is a 2012 news story about potential changes in the European Union Convention language, pertaining to violence against women. (The changes never happened.) It does not directly refer to wolf whistles at all. In the entry content, the phrase " . . . is sometimes considered . . ." is not supported with any data; the "sometimes" is consequently very squishy. These sources are pertinent but seem to me no less reliable than my suggestions. I want to understand the rules before I proceed further. Malduf (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You never break a rule by suggesting an edit on the talk page. As I said, the only source I've seen that has any merit is the one at www.telegraph.co.uk. Take my suggestions above and make a suggested edit on the talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)