User talk:Shiznaw

Fergie
I don't get the connection in your edit summary to the changes you made in the Fergie article. What does Fergie coming from the suburbs have to do with the genre of music she makes? VoluntarySlave (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you quite understand the interconnectedness between culture and music, VoluntarySlave; nonetheless, Fergie as an artist left up to her own devices with no other co-author is not a hip hop artist...

WP:Civil
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please keep civility in mind when interacting with other users in the future. This edit to a user's talk page could be interpreted as threatening, which I'm sure was not your intention. Thank you! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanxs. I will keep it in mind.
 * Also, for future reference, don't forget to sign your posts with four tilde (~). It is a very useful tool for your fellow editors to be able to recognize where you've made a talk page contribution, versus simply making your contribution, as you've done on this page.  Thanks!    --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User talk:Yamla has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Racism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Did I not discuss the possibility of redefining the term to include power and ability? What's going on here?
 * I am not sure why DVdm took the time to warn you about your totally correct post. the warning is a misuse of Wiki Talk page rules, no forum policy violated. Your comment is indeed a good suggestion. Please Join the debate here, I support your comments. [RACISM AND POWER]--Inayity (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Here
The intellectual discussion is open to me so chat me up sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.225 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

September 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at White Puerto Ricans, you may be blocked from editing. '' You've been making some disruptive edits on this article and multiple editors have reverting, citing good reasons in the edit summaries. Please do persist in making disruptive edits that flout the guidelines. JesseRafe (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

'Disruptive' Editing To: JesseRafe (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Below is the text which I continue to insert as the opening paragraph for 'White Puerto Ricans'. In what world does any part of this fall under the ambiguously defined term, 'disruptive'. You need to dial your rhetoric down to level 1 when communicating your opinions on my page, son.

White Puerto Ricans are Puerto Ricans who self-identify as white due to a rubric of laws like the Regla del Sacar or Gracias al Sacar dating back to the 1700's where a person of mixed ancestry could be considered legally white so long as they could prove that at least one person per generation in the last four generations had also been legally white. Therefore, people of mixed ancestry with known white lineage were classified as white, the opposite of the "one-drop rule" in the United States. shiznaw (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

shiznaw (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so, the rule is to keep the status quo in place, no matter how ill-defined it is, until you open a topic on the talk page to discuss your proposed change.
 * Clarification: discussion is part of the process, but you need to discuss until you achieve consensus' for the change you want, or until it's clear that consensus doesn't agree with you. That's the sting of a community editing project. My recommendation is to discuss the changes, and to consider opening a neutrally-worded Request for Comment to get a wider field of input, if you are so inclined. What is not'' an option is to keep changing the article to conform to your perspective when other editors oppose the changes. Each one of us has strong feelings/beliefs/understandings about various topics. In a community editing project, it is unreasonable and unrealistic for us to demand that our perspective be the dominant perspective so long as there is opposition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem here with your narrative is that my simple one paragraph edit doesn't reflect my perspective or personal opinion, rather it's a cited fact. Nothing more, nothing less. The only failure I see here is not opening a discussion on the talk page after the 3rd revision. Now since I've been found in violation of such a grievous charge in the wiki-world, I can move forward with the knowledge that you guys operate by a differing set of rules than academia; learn by it; and adjust. I think we're done here. Moving on. shiznaw (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I want to thank you for participating in this discussion. Secondly, just because something is cited doesn't mean that it is mandatory for inclusion. As we often say here, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". There are often legitimate reasons why sourced content may not be included, like if the source is unreliable, or if the content represents a fringe opinion. (Not saying either of those things are applicable here, only presenting context.) It might also be totally possible that some aspects of the content you submitted were just not considered relevant for the article's lead, which tends to summarize content well-established elsewhere in the article. This would be something you would discover from discussion. (Although I think one of the editors objected to the quality of the content.) "my simple one paragraph edit doesn't reflect my perspective or personal opinion", maybe, but you feel/think/believe that content absolutely must be there, and other people disagree. So yeah, this is an "I think" vs. "they think" situation, like most edit-warring scenarios. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are legitimate reasons as to why my cited edit shouldn't have been included, but yet none of what you mentioned above is applicable, then what was the actual reason? To this date, no one knows except the persistent clown who kept reverting my edit. The only rationale you have is predicated on the belief that all opinions and views are considered to be equal until we go through a process of weighing competing proposals before others who may or may not understand the subject matter, harbor a bias, etc. It seems to me that although the rules provide structure, but it's just messy enough to be ran like a well-meaning circus. Nonetheless, I have no choice, so we'll go thru the process.shiznaw (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "then what was the actual reason?" - Not to be smug, but if you actually wanted an answer, opening a discussion would likely have inspired one. Some of the objections JesseRafe raised on his talk page, although it wasn't pertinent that I understand his rationale. Anyway, look, I'm ready to unblock you, because you seem to be getting the message that this is a community project and we all get to decide what content appears or doesn't appear in articles. I just want to make one additional issue clear: since this is a community project, we don't allow name-calling or other forms of personal attacks. Some people find this very difficult to control, and community editing isn't for everybody. But if you can promise to keep a cool head even when someone might be shitting on your contribution, and not call people names (like clowns), then we can get you out of this hole. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not incumbent upon me, when I supply additional info that I think pertinent, to convince a single admin that my contribution meets his/her sensibilities. According to how the structure is set here in WikiWorld, it's my job to prove that whatever info I provide is sourced, reasonable, and pertinent. If this guy had an express issue or specific complaint, then we go thru 'the process'. Whatever I provide could be redundant, superfluous, or just downright unnecessary. I think we all understand that. My point is that simply reverting my edit doesn't equate to offering a substantive reason as to why a contribution shouldn't exist. Upon my initial edit, I had met the minimum requirement of citing the source and providing relevance as to the ambiguity of the defining term 'white puerto ricans'. This is the least - the bare minimum - that was required. I had met that requirement. Full Stop. Reverting such changes is the equivalent of a ' lazy man's ' way of engaging in thoughtful and considerate debate and it undercuts the spirit of how the rules and policies exist to provide a meaningful product to the public. AS far as calling this guy a 'clown' is concerned WP:NPA Policy, the term exists for a reason. LOL. Ohhh, I crack myself up. But, to your point: No, I can't promise anything. I can only learn what rules you guys are playing by and adjust my behavior to abide by those rules and policies set forth. That's the best, I would expect, anyone to do. Cheers.shiznaw (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've released the block, because I feel like you're willing to discuss the changes. Good luck with the discussion, and if you have questions or need advice, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Tina Turner have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Neveselbert "an Black American-born Swiss singer" - what about this change didn't appear constructive...can you explain? shiznaw (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See MOS:ETHNICITY. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Neveselbert "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. So are you suggesting that Tina Turner's black heritage is not a significant part in her musical contributions?!?  I'm confused here. shiznaw (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant specifically to her notability? &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Neveselbert Wait..What?  It's her core identity.  Is this a joke? shiznaw (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * She's not notable because she was black. She's notable for being a great singer. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "She's not notable because she was black. She's notable for being a great singer." Neveselbert Classic Strawman Fallacy.  No one argued "Because Tina is Black, she is a great singer".  Black (negro) is an integral part of who she is and the songs she created and sang.
 * Aso if you insist on arguing this point, we need to move it over to [|Tina Turner Talk Page]. shiznaw (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Deprodding of Talk:Yoruba_Americans
I have removed the tag from Talk:Yoruba_Americans, which you proposed for deletion. You cannot prod a talk page. If you wish to prod the article, put it on the article page. Also, you must leave an edit summary saying that you proposed deletion, which you did not. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Jfire. I noticed that you recently removed content from Yoruba Americans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If you were a newbie, then I might understand your recent edits as mistakes, but some of these recent edits of your are major errors. Please take your time to think how other Wikipedians might misconstrue your good intentions. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Social ownership. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.