User talk:Superbeecat/Archives/2011/September

Orphaned non-free image File:Super pac flyer.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Super pac flyer.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You should look at what you are reverting before you blindly revert. You just added a hilarious load of false information to Neil Francis (rugby union). 98.248.194.216 (talk)
 * Yikes, sorry. Bad twinkle edit. My bad! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * mmm :) - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK my friend...

I sent you information about my ownership of KeylonticDictionary.org

And.. I rebuilt "Freedom Teachings"

Hope is OK,

Please et me know.

Thanks

Arek1728 (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the article you've posted appears to not pass notability guidelines, and is borderline on patent nonsense. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 05:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

bot auto-protecting racist, completely unsourced page "Californians for Population Stabilization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californians_for_Population_Stabilization&action=history

Had an interesting experience on Wikipedia just now. Watching the Republican "debate" last night with the sound off. An ad comes up for "Californians for Population Stabilization" which, by the visuals only, is pretty suspect. Go to Google, find a Wikipedia page. "Californians for Population Stabilization" is a racist political non-profit that blames all of California's problems on illegal immigration, which of course is code for Hispanics. All of California's problems are the fault of Hispanics, legal or illegal. The interesting thing is that the page at Wikipedia is completely unsourced and offers no references or background other than the "Californians for Population Stabilization" website itself. This is, of course, supposed to be completely impossible at Wikipedia, which prides itself on demanding objective and thorough sourcing for all articles.

What became even more interesting is that when I edited the page to mention that the article was 1) racist, and 2) completely unsourced, a "bot' immediately reverted my edit!

When I edited the page again, to point out 1) and 2) and then mention that there was a "bot" sitting on the page automatically reverting any edits, I later received a "message" from Wikipedia notifying me that I had been identified as practicing vandalism against Wikipedia, that my IP address had been logged, and that any further "vandalism" would result in my being blocked from Wikipedia!

So you have a blatantly racist page on Wikipedia that exists in complete violation of every principle that Wikipedia claims to hold so dear, that auto-reverts any changes via a bot, and that will report you to Wikipedia for vandalism if you try to counter their racist bullshit!

The final joke is that at Wikipedia's Contact Us page, you learn that there's no way to get ahold of any human being that might be the least bit concerned about this clear violation of Wikipedia standards.

24.19.202.47 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC) me
 * I'll take a look at the diffs, but my theory is that the page went up under the radar (speculation, I haven't examined it yet) - remember that good or bad, notability is key, and if this organization exists and can afford prime TV spots, then likely it will pass WP:N (though, of course, it still needs to be cited and sourced properly). If you commented within the article itself (rather than on the talk page) that it was racist (almost never proper, unless dealing with a blatantly racist organization i.e. stormfront and its ilk), it would be reverted. Sometimes, this would be reverted as vandalism because words like "racist" are automatically flagged (they're usually vandalism edits, attacking an organization or person), and usually reversed. This does not, however, mean that your good-faith edits should have been reversed. If you would like to point out the controversial nature of the article, I recommend finding a reliable 3rd party source, and state that THE SOURCE has called the organization racist, not that it "IS RACIST" (which smacks of opinion). Let me know if I can help! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the diffs, and you edited your commentary right on top of the article itself, which is (although unintentionally) vandalism. The article itself is not a place for your opinion on the subject of the article, nor for your opinion on Wikipedia itself. Though your intentions may have been good, both the bot reverts, and my own were proper. I can help you properly edit the article if you like. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Had an interesting exchange with one of Wikipedia's hall monitors. My edits were "vandalism" because I failed to follow Wikipedia's standards and placed my commentary directly on the page itself, and not on the page's "Talk" page.


 * I pointed out that the page itself was completely un-sourced, a fundamental standard that Wikipedia claims it demands.


 * I was invited to produce a counter-opinion from a "plausible third-party source" (i.e. not my personal opinion) that the content and the organisation was racist, and submit that for review. The fact that I've been following conservative American politics very, very closely since the late 1950's, and lived in Southern California until the mid 1970's, is meaningless.


 * So racist organisations can have completely un-sourced, bot-protected pages on Wikipedia, and anyone who challenges them will be held to higher standards than the racist organisation was in the first place.


 * Got it..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.202.47 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If a page is unsourced, you are welcome to place an unsourced tag on it. You don't have to submit anything for review, I was simply letting you know how to edit Wikipedia without getting your changes reverted as vandalism. If everyone marked up their opinions on top of Wikipedia's articles, it would cease to have any credibility. You are correct, nobody's personal experience is a source for Wikipedia, the entire premise is sourcing information from reliable third party sources, like all encyclopedias. The ability of a "racist" or otherwise organization to have a Wikipedia article depends entirely on notability. See Nazi. Pages which do not assert importance, or notability can be tagged for speedy deletion, just as improper edits can be reverted. The standard is the same, you just need to take a minute to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia editing, which I'm more than happy to assist you with. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 18:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've examined the page, and agree that it suffers from POV, and lacks good third party sources, so I've tagged it as such. Note that this simply means the article needs to be improved, not removed. Simply googling "Californians for Population Stabilization" makes it obvious that this is a notable organization, but it must be asserted, and written in a NPOV fashion. If you are interested in politics, consider giving it a re-write, or expanding it using third party sources. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * You bet! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)