User talk:Naha8

9 August 2015
I removed the misinformation on Margaret Sanger's page because it has never been verified by historians. A common practice of the anti-choice movement is to take Mrs. Sanger's comments and quote them out of context in order to perpetuate the idea that she was in favor of negative eugenics. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project has indicated that this is a very frequent problem that has not resulted in helpful dialogue with the anti-choice community. If users continue to promote claims that cannot be verified, they should be removed from her page. User:naha8 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm JJMC89. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Margaret Sanger with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Margaret Sanger with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Margaret Sanger shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Favonian (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 04:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

11 August 2015, 00:37 UTC
Hello, Ceradon. I have read the information under build an encyclopedia. I wonder if you could clarify for me which item(s) in that list I have been blocked in accordance with. That will allow me to construct my appeal in an appropriate manner. Thank you for your help. naha8
 * The likely cause for your ban was your brief edit war on Margret Sanger where you deleted sources that you disagreed with and inserted your own narrative. You were here for political editorialization instead of being here to build an accurate encyclopedia. Chrononem   &#9742;  19:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. Thank you for the clarification, Chrononem, and the notice, Ceradon. I deleted those sources because they appeared to be strongly biased in support of partisan rhetoric, which should also be considered a form of political editorialization, from my perspective. In particular, there were changes made to the eugenics section soon after the release of the sting videos from CMP, which have been widely discredited. The timing of these changes seemed to be more than a coincidence. A common complaint of Sanger historians is that the narrative regarding her involvement in the eugenics movement has been deliberately skewed by the anti-abortion movement in order to attack Planned Parenthood, to the point where the first results that come up on any internet search including her name are anti-abortion sites that use shortened versions of her quotes taken out of context. My objection was directed at the deliberate use of the term "negative eugenics" and the quotes taken out of context, as there has not been any credible evidence presented that she actually held many of these views or advocated for their application. For example, if you read the first line of the next section, a quote from her writings regarding aboriginal Australians is used to suggest that she believed some humans were lesser beings than other humans, even though she explicitly wrote that it was what she had been told by others, and she did not write that she endorsed those views. Mentioning that one has been told something is not a direct endorsement of an idea. In addition, the pamphlet associated with the picture that is presented above the added text regarding negative eugenics does not, in fact, promote negative eugenics. Mrs. Sanger's writing is filled with references to correspondence from other people, and the anti-choice crowd is especially fond of quoting Sanger in truncated form and out of context in order to promote the idea that she advocated for the genocide of those who were not of European descent. No evidence has been found thus far to validate that claim, but you would not know it based on popular beliefs, internet results, or her Wikipedia page. The eugenics movement in the U.S. was certainly misguided and resulted in terrible injustices to many women and communities; however, Sanger's involvement would be best described in a neutral way and put into relevant historical context (particularly in an encyclopedia), and this is not present in the current text. It is true that I edited the text hastily and from a position of mistrust in the intentions of the original author. I agree that this was wrong, and after further review of the Wikipedia guidelines, I understand why I was blocked from editing. I would like to follow the guidelines and participate in community discussions with others to improve the presentation of accurate information for Wikipedia, but I will leave it up to the moderators to decide whether I will be allowed to do so. I apologize for the disturbance, and thank you for reading this.  Naha8 (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)}}


 * Due to, among other things, your partisan language in the above comment I don't think your request is going to get approved as it stands. You may try requesting your ban be changed to a Topic Ban instead. Chrononem   &#9742;  13:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the partisan language, but I am confused about why it would be wrong to work with others to revise the Sanger eugenics section to reflect neutral presentation of information rather than reinforcing popular rhetoric. Naha8 13 August 2015, 16:47 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you are discussing this with others on the Margaret Sanger talk page, and that you believe this information is easily verifiable, although her biographers do not agree with you. This indicates to me that you are invested in reinforcing the negative information regardless of context, and regardless of whether it has been verified by historians. Makes sense now. Naha8 13 August 2015, 16:52 (UTC)
 * No, the problem I saw was with your partisan attitude. I was not involved with your edit war, it was other editors that found the content you removed to be easily verifiable. I am just trying to help you step into a positive roll in Wikipedia. The fact that your ban was indefinite made me suspect it would not be commuted to less than a topic ban. Chrononem   &#9742;  17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Other editors don't appear to be able to substantiate their arguments with verifiable sources, either. In addition, you are indeed promoting the use of misinformation on the Sanger talk page while refusing to provide sources. I can read your comments as well as the comments of those who disagree with you, and I am certainly able to understand all of it. Well, I suppose that's just the way it is. I guess this is why many people don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of unbiased information. I should not have expected anything different. Have a good day. Naha8 13 August 2015, 17:49 (UTC)

Request for assistance:
I am trying to ask for arbitration about the misinformation that is being promoted on the Margaret Sanger page, but as I have been completely blocked from editing, I have no way to do this. From the posts on the talk page, it is clear that I am not the only user who has been trying to revise certain portions of the text to reflect a more neutral perspective with verifiable sources; however, these other users and I have received strong pushback from one user in particular, who has also posted on my talk page. If the goal of Wikipedia is to present unbiased information that can be independently verified with the sources provided, it should not be permissible for one user to deny requests for revision due to obvious partisan alignment. Thank you for your help.

Naha8 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your attempts to get yourself unbanned are useless. You're obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and unwilling to accept help. Chrononem   &#9742;  18:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am certainly no longer willing to accept offers of "help" from you. You have shown your true colors on the talk page, and plenty of other users are there to see it. If having my ban lifted requires capitulation to your biased agenda, then it's fine if I remain banned. Naha8 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think Planned Parenthood employs more thorough fact-checking and is more neutral regarding Sanger than, say, the Washington Post or books published by reputable publishers, or that your personal opinion that Sanger wasn't a racist beats quotes from her own writings, you are mistaken. Huon (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not using Planned Parenthood as a source, Huon. If you read my page, then you would see that I am not objecting to quotes taken from her writings. I am objecting to quotes that are clearly taken out of context, for example, providing a small portion of her text without the surrounding information that negates the political intent of the quote. This is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia, is it not? I don't care if she was or was not a racist. I do care that her words are clearly being misrepresented by those with a political agenda. The objection to my edits based on "partisan language" is rather silly, considering that the text being upheld (against objections from other users) is obviously being used to cast Sanger in an unfavorable light. Naha8 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right about Planned Parenthood, but I must note that the sources you did add aren't much better. Here you remove not only sources that are more reliable than yours, but remove a Sanger quote that's repeated in your own sources, too. Instead you give us a Sanger apology that's not even backed up by your own sources, which do not meet the standards you hold other sources to. Huon (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Altogether it is a moot point. If an administrator was willing to unban him outright they would have done so. He's not willing to request a topic ban so he won't be vandalizing any more pages, at least. It's just a shame he couldn't adapt to wikipedia rules and become a constructive editor. As for me I have to go back to the Margaret_Sanger page and try and maintain some semblance of WP:NPOV I almost wonder if he is a sock for one of the users there. He seems to have an odd understanding of wikipedia markup language, though not WP policy, for such a new user... Thanks for trying, Huon. Chrononem   &#9742;  14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, Huon, point taken. I'm not sure how the sources I gave did not back up my argument, but I agree that I should have found better sources to support the information I was attempting to present. Naha8 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, Chrononem, I'm not sure why you insist on referring to me as "he". I am a woman, and I prefer female pronouns. I seem to have an odd understanding of Wikipedia markup language? I'm not quite sure what that means, but I have edited wikis in the past for my lab, so I have some experience with wiki editing. It is true that I should have thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia policy before I edited anything, and I am the only one to blame for that. As for requesting a topic ban, why would I do that if the topic that prompted me to sign up is the one I would be banned from editing? I have offered to work collaboratively and discuss the issues I have with the claims presented in the Sanger topic in the talk page, but it seems fairly important to you that I not be allowed to do that. It is also clear that there are others who disagree with you, but for some reason, you appear to consider yourself the final authority on Margaret Sanger. In particular, you seem unwilling to accept that simply mentioning that one has been told something is not equivalent to endorsing what one has been told. The revisionist information you are promoting as truth has been fact-checked by historians and media outlets quite recently due to similar claims from Dr. Ben Carson, and once again, they indicate that there is no credible evidence to suggest that Sanger was a racist or promoted sterilization of those who were not of European descent. Lastly, what the heck is a sock for a user? It doesn't seem pleasant, and I don't appreciating being referred to in that manner. Naha8 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because neutralizing gender pronouns is cumbersome. I don't have any authority over what gets you unbanned, I only suggested it as the lightest alternative to an outright ban, since your offense was obvious but not, in my opinion, severe. I'm glad you've decided to follow my advice and hope you get unbanned. Chrononem   &#9742;  19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

17 August 2015

 * Quick question: Are you employed by Sanger, even if indirectly? If so, you must disclose it. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sanger's pretty dead, Jeremy. Chrononem   &#9742;  21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well... approaching it from another viewpoint: are you working for any organization that would stand to gain by having an article for Sanger read in a certain manner? By that I mean any organizations that she founded, had a major role in developing, or views her as a central figure (ie, that they have a page on their website devoted to her). If it's with an organization that would fall in line with things that she did then that probably wouldn't be the type of COI that Jeremy is asking about. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These are rather strange questions. As far as I know, I do not work for an organization that would stand to benefit from information about Sanger being presented in a neutral or positive way. I am currently an independent contractor with the NIH, and my work is in neuroradiology. I look at brain scans all day. Naha8 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd highly, highly recommend that you undergo some sort of training, either through WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE. The first is usually more recommended on Wikipedia but the second will show your progress through the program. It's not an absolute necessity, but it will give you a good overview of editing policies and be an easy, excellent way to show that you're making a good faith attempt to follow policy and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand the reason for the questions now. Yes, it was just out of personal interest, and I did go about editing Sanger's page in a way that was disruptive and misguided. Thank you for your advice about WP:TRAINING and WP:ADVENTURE. I do understand that if this happens on another page, I will be blocked and unlikely to receive an unblock. Thank you very much for your time and assistance, Tokyogirl79. Naha8 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Naha8! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:05, Wednesday, September 2, 2015 (UTC)