User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive October 2017

Place messages below

As an economic Development employee of the Clayton County Government, that owns the Mountain View area, we are entitled to make changes that fall within the county purview. The reference source for this information is a livable communities initiative study undertaken by the county and the Atlanta regional commission of the Mountain View area. This document is not available online as it is a bonded document. Please return the changes as was done. Thank you.

@Jasdbrookins:No one is "entitled" to make changes against wiki policy, per WP:V all material added to wikipedia must cite a WP:RS, you cant make an edit and say "there is a reference but it is not public", all info must cite a publicly available reverence. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My Talk Page Also

Sorry, they are all my talk pages also, only due to ip changes because I switch my router off and on/reboot so the ip changes. 175.140.181.123 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer page

I am a member of Patriot Prayer, and have been working on the entry regarding our group, trying to correct some mistakes, and add pertinent details. The article is currently pretty biased, and contains several inaccuracies. I am new to this editing thing, so not sure how it all works, but am seeing the talk on the entries for the page, and it is disturbing, some of the conclusions being drawn. Conclusions are to be drawn by the reader, not the reporter of facts. Most of the information I posted is verifiable, but is coming from firsthand experience. I was at all these events. I spoke at several of them. I helped organize them. I am heavily involved and in the know, so false information is troublesome to me.2601:1C2:4B00:36EE:D0FA:CBEA:C2CA:EA1A (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am strongly against false information too, my concern about your edits is that they seem to violate wikipedia policies, specifically WP:V and WP:OR, it is tricky to edit a controversial aea when you new (I did this when I was new and got called out for violation a different policy, just couse I didn't know what I was doing,) feel free to ask me any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not even sure how to tell what all the codes/IP address stuff means. I just know I see inaccurate information, and the page seems to be determined to perpetuate it. Nothing I have changed is false or inaccurate, and can be easily verified. The information about the SF and Portland events was all mixed up. It has only been counter protesters who have ever been arrested (that point matters, as it shows PP is not committing crimes or assaults-or we would get arrested too). The rallies have never been advertised as Trump rallies by anyone but the media, with the exception of the first one in Vancouver. Certainly not on facebook event pages, the only place we advertise them. And Trump is not a topic discussed, with very rare exceptions. Most of the topic is free speech and anti-political violence. That is easily proven with all the video coverage of all the speeches. Patriot Prayer is NOT anti=government and there is nothing anywhere where they have claimed to be. They are very pro-law enforcement, which is not in line with anti-government. They are most certainly not a white supremacy group, and have disavowed such groups on a regular basis. I made changes to issues I saw that were inaccurate, and rather than try and verify, you just change them back. How is that showing concern for accuracy? It is fine to dislike this group, but be honest and accurate about them, at least.2601:1C2:4B00:36EE:D0FA:CBEA:C2CA:EA1A (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4B00:36EE:D0FA:CBEA:C2CA:EA1A (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources cites do not specifically say the only counter protesters were arrested, if you find a reliable source that specifies this mention this on the talk page. I have nothing against the group and never said they are racist in any way, I agree with you that anti-govt is a misleading lable, but this had been debated significantly, so it needed to be discussed on the talk page first. The fact that the truck driver was not arrested is true and i am planning to restore that info when i get the chance. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Make sure you don't get sucked in over there, I've requested page protection due to that IP, Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: sucked in to what? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What would cause you to say this? Are you operating under a bias? Nothing I said was inaccurate or false. Doesn't the truth and accuracy matter? Blocking me from correcting inaccurate information? Really? That causes me to think there is bias involved here. Any rational person would think so. Who do I report this to?2601:1C2:4B00:36EE:D0FA:CBEA:C2CA:EA1A (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

An edit war mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New section

Why did you take it off I only fixed a world that was misspelled😡😡 M&M9000 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A Big Thank You for No Mercy (2017)

Hi there, thanks for warn the IP 86.147.15.187 from blocking. I know I watch and protect the No Mercy (2017) article. The IP 86.147.15.187 has kept on disrupt the editing from the No Mercy (2017) article. Could you block 86.147.15.187 for disruptive editing. Please review this edit. I will look forward for your reply. Thanks. 2001:569:7C0B:6100:3181:FD3E:FF4B:2DB7 (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This IP has already been blocked for 31 hours, I can't block, as I'm not an admin, but anyone can report a vandal to AIV, (I reported this user, leading to the block). Tornado chaser (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I am here for you just to say thank you. 2001:569:7C0B:6100:3181:FD3E:FF4B:2DB7 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the messages you send

I have never edited any article on Wikipedia, yet I get messages about "non-constructive contributions" when I just want to read an article. It would be great if you guys realize that many people use dynamic IPs, and stop sending messages to anonymous users. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.222.179 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The way to avoid this confusion is to create an account, we send messages to anonymous users to warn them the they made an unhelpful edit or to inform them about wikipedia policies. Is is possible to be warned or even blocked for something you didn't do when editing as an IP, and by the way, it's a bit misleading to say an IP is anonymous, anyone can click "geolocate" and know what town your in and what your ISP is if you edit as an IP, if you create an account you are more anonymous then if you don't. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

New section

Hello Tornado chaser: I am in hopes that you can help me better understand this statement: "This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources." I have read the information regarding "primary" "secondary" and "tertiary" sources, but I not sure what to do when wanting to cite an article which supports something that was actually said or was written by the person whose page I am working on. If I can't use the article that the person wrote as a citation, do I need to look for a citation by someone who heard that person make the statement? I have appreciated your comments and help on the page that I am currently working on. This is the second page I have edited and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the mechanics e.g. how to insert citations, create links etc. but I am still struggling with how to provide acceptable citations.Giraffe46 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC

@Giraffe46: I am not worried about using primary sources for direct quotes, my concern is when you use a lot of primary sources to source statements of fact, this is an easy way to accedentally violate WP:NPOV. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tornado Chaser: I found you answer !!! I see, so it is not a problem with quoting what the person said - rather supporting the person's opinion or statement with a statement that they made - that makes perfect sense. I will go back through the cites and see where that is happening. I appreciate your patience with my learning curve. I had a very different experience on the first page I edited and thought I would never edit a page again, but I feel encouraged with your willingness to be helpful. Giraffe46 (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

You can do, what I can not, thanks again.

P.S. But you will have a struggle as I once tried to explain, the founder's ethnicity has no more to do with those associating with the group than does that founder's status as an ex-con. Neither are relevant, best of luck.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Gilmore, stop violating your tban. TC I have posted to the talk page regarding your revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, Please leave me alone and stay away from anything I post and all my pages, if you have an issue, you may report me again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:@C. W. Gilmore: Sorry if I'm dense, but I'm not sure what you'r thanking me for, and I don't think anything that anyone posted on my talk page is a violation of any ban. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't even mention the article from which I am banned, that is too close to talking about it, but you are helping out there to keep the excesses of one POV pushing on that article, which can not be named. My thanking you, brought down the wrath of the one pushing the POV on to your Talk page and for that I do apologize.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There you go, he is thanking every editor who reverts me on the article, if he keeps it up I will have no choice but to report him. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

One other thing, I'm not bothered by you checking my contributions, but this was a bad revert, it was obviously another harassment account. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That was probably an error on my part, I saw it cause Dermis is on my WL. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Anthony J. Rock:

Dear Anthony you said

You said

Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Anthony J. Rock, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Tornado chaser (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)"

I respond saying: There are a number of sentences in my changes. All of the most relevant content do have citations. As to the fact that the event did occur I provided a link to Foxnews. You are free to dispute Foxnews as a reliable source however you should not revert a post because of this. The better course of action would have been to simply verify that the event did occur and then provide alternate sources of which there are many.

If your reversion for lack of citation is referring to an alternate section of the content than you should not remove the entire content but only the section for which you think there is sufficient grounds for lack of citation.

You said further

Your recent edit to Anthony J. Rock seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I respond saying: Please provide citations to my content that you believe is "less than neutral". Before you remove content en-masse like you did you should either provide an opportunity to discuss it or provide more reason for your removal than simply making generic unsupported comments saying the content was less than neutral.

If you disagree with the way the content is expressed as being less than neutral then you should try to improve the way the content is expressed and make it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromitml (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gromitml:There wasn't just 1 part of the edit that was an issue, the whole thing was written in a tone that was clearly against gay marriage, in violation of WP:NPOV. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I presented objective facts of a national story. Please do not remove items just because you impute a tone to them. You should provide reasons for why you think something is not neutral instead of deleting them wholesale.

@Gromitml: I did, I said that the section you added was clearly arguing against gay marriage, violating WP:NPOV. But then you added the same fact without the bias, which I am fine with. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I reject that. There is no argument one way or the other regarding marriage in my content. My content takes no position in providing facts important to understanding the context of the controversy and why it is controversial. Finally, contrary to what you say, you did not provide a reason why you found the content exhibiting a non neutral point of view you merely stated that and cited wiki policy. Please provide a reason as to why you think the content is non neutral or perhaps edit the content conveying the same thing but in a way you think is neutral. Your removal of the content instead of improvement is inconsistent with the goals of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromitml (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gromitml: you added the following:

Controversy

General Rock was involved in the Leland B.H. Bohannon controversy stripping Air Force Col Bohannon from command after Col Bohannon did not send a certificate of appreciation to the male "spouse" of one of his subordinates. Col Bohannon adhered to the nearly universal and centuries old understanding that a spouse was a person of the opposite sex</nowiki></ref> and therefore could not in conscience sign a "certificate of spousal appreciation" for the male spouse of his subordinate. Col Bohannon sought a religious exemption from the optional practice of sending a spousal certificate in this case. Instead of defending western civilization and the customs of the Unites States Miliatry since its inception which have never recognized such a modern concept as a "same sex spouse" General Brock stripped Col Bohannon from command and further recommended that Brock not be promoted. Up to this point Col Bohannon had served with distinction for over 20 years.

The United States military has made benefits available to all military spouses under the Obama administration and under the leadership of Leon Panetta since 2012 and 2013.

Under the code of military justice, from its inception to modern times, sexual activity between members of the same sex has been considered immoral and has therefor been classified as a crime.

The tone of the section was clearly biased against gay marriage, the most obvious parts I have highlighted. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Progressive stack revision

Hello Tornado chaser, thanks for the message. I agree with the idea of keeping a neutral point-of-view on Wikipedia. With that said, accuracy is also important. A prior edition of the 'progressive stack' described the technique as 'racist', a detail which you removed. I don't believe this to be a biased or non-neutral claim, but factual. Racism, according to Wikipedia's page on racism, is "discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis". The progressive stack is definitively so, and I believe use of the word to be entirely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimcquack (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the issue is't really neutrality, but a lack of any WP:RS to support the change. Tornado chaser (talk)

Maybe I should have said your edit was unsourced, not biased. Tornado chaser (talk)

Fair enough, I will accommodate. Wikimcquack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I included a source, caveating it that "according to X source" seems tedious and unnecessary, especially considering the racism is inherent within the definition and honestly shouldn't have required a source to begin with.Wikimcquack (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimcquack:. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, controversial opinions should be described as "according to X source", not in wikipedias voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a controversial opinion, this is fact. I will leave it as is, but I think this is despicable. The progressive stack is inherently racist, and using your force and refusing to include it in the definition, in my opinion, makes you culprit in the promulgation of racist educational techniques. If this is the case, I think you should be ashamed of yourself. But I will refrain from editing further, but I suggest you either undo your last revision and reapply the word racist as it is completely appropriate, or at the very least edit the progressive stack in a way you find appropriate to include the ways in which this discriminates against people based on their ethnicity and culture. Again, I will state this plainly and factually: the progressive stack openly discriminates on people based on ethnicity and culture. This is not controversial but factual. Please do the right thing. I will make no further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimcquack (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimcquack:I agree with you opinion, but unsourced opinions don't belong in articles, fox news alone is not enough to say this is a racist techniuc, you would need more sources, and not just conservative ones. none asked you to stop edition, just provide more sources and discuss them on the talk page before adding "racist". Tornado chaser (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sohyang Page

You are deleting all information about Sohyang because they apparently have no sources which is not true. I added a link and many things were said by Sohyang herself. So please stop deleting it!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.229.73 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you point me to the link? I didn't see it. As for the stuff that was said by Sohyang herself, per WP:V you need to cite an RS which says that she said this, otherwise anyone could say "this person said X" and there would be no way to know if it was true. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to ask my if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

https://namu.wiki/w/%EC%86%8C%ED%96%A5

https://namu.wiki/w/%EB%82%98%EB%8A%94%20%EA%B0%80%EC%88%98%EB%8B%A4%202

These are the links where the personal information about Sohyang and all information about her participation on I am a Singer 2 are from.

I would be happy if you could make my changes visible again or tell me what is wrong with those links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.229.73 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

These links appear to link to a wiki, since anyone can edit a wiki, wikis are not RSs. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

But how should we add these information then? MBC does not have an offical statistic site like this as far as I know and since I am not korean I also have a hard time looking for this. There are videos on youtube that proof the statements in the wiki so do I really have to search and link every single video in which we can see which rank Sohyang got placed in?

And why did oyu delete the personal section of sohyangs life? It has been there for ever and nobody ever had a problem with this so could you please atleast add that part in again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.229.73 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You do have to provide links to any sources you use, otherwise there would be no way to tell is the sources exist or are made up. Also, many youtube videos do not meet WP:RS. The personal section was unsourced and therefore not verifiable. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this source enough?

It's the offical MBC Youtube account with the videos of whole I am A Singer 2

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0ViHmWusvlsdhWepr1xDPg/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.229.73 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know Korean so I can't judge this, I am going to ask for more opinions on the reliable source noticeboard. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is this source enough? Its the korean wikipedia article with all sources so could you Please add my entry in Sohyang page again?

ko.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%86%8C%ED%96%A5#cite_ref-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.229.73 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC) {

I don't know Korean, I have posted on the reliable sources noticeboard in the hope that someone who knows Korean will help us. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Diana DiZoglio page

I recently made some edits to the Diana DiZoglio page, which were all removed. All of the uploaded material was cited to nonpartisan sources, so not sure why the deletion of everything.

BostonAC (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@BostonAC: The issue was that the material was written in a waay that looked like it was trying to make her look good, citing nonpartisan sources is good, but you can still have a non-neutral tone in your writing even if the sources are good, feel free to ask my if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Rev del requests

Hi, TC. Thanks for looking out for issues needing Rev del. Please don't make revdel requests at ANI. The reason something needs to be revdel'd is because it shouldn't be seen, right? Posting a link at the busiest page on Wikipedia is not a good way to accomplish that goal. Better ways:

1. send an email to an administrator that appears to be online and leaving the a YGM template to alert them
2. email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org . Altho that's primarily for over sighting an edit, they will handle revdel too.
3. leave a brief message on an active admins page.

Keep up the dilligance. John from Idegon (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I almost always use the oversight email (you send that from your email account, not thru wiki email). As a coordinator at WikiProject schools, I run across a lot of "Jonnie has a big d**k" or "Mr. Foo molests monkeys" type garbage that needs Rev del. John from Idegon (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wakefield discussion

Jytdog posted a notice of discretionary sanctions in my talk page, although I don't see anything about me or the topic we are discussing in the page he linked. I don't know if he is just trying to tell me he went to the Arbitration Committee or if he is trying to educate me or if he is trying to scare me. Thinker78 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Discretionary sanctions notices are given to everyone who edits an article that is under discretionary sanctions, all articles related to vaccines are under discretionary sanctions (and have been for years, Jytdog didn't just go to arbcom). Basically, if an article is under discretionary sanctions, it means that an admin can topic ban or otherwise sanction you if you edit war, push a bias, or otherwise edit disruptively, note that you can still be blocked for blatant nor persistent policy violations even if the article is not under discretionary sanctions.

Discretionary sanctions generally apply to articles un controversial topics such as politics that people are likely to try to insert bias into. Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Adem Somyurek

I'm aware of edit warring. For the sake of clarity, are you able to cite an authoritative Wikipedia rule rather than stating that "wikipedia isn't a list of speeches"? That could easily be mistaken for an opinion.

@Datastream Cowboy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias don't just list every speech a politician has made, if you disagree, please discuss the issue with other editors on the talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Richard Howson

(WP:BLP violation removed) unsigned comment by User:Dr Nobody

@Dr Nobody: Wikipedia has policies that require reliable sources for anything added to Wikipedia, especially if it involves accusations against living people, repeated unsourced accusations against living people will get you blocked. Also, since you say you are involved in this, you should read WP:COI in addition to the other links I sent you. 12:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your threats; nothing has been posted by me that is not 100 percent correct and truthful. Your critique however was spiteful and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nobody (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dr Nobody: No, true or not nothing may be added without a reliable source, otherwise everyone who wanted to say that MMR causes autism or Obama was borne in Kenya would just say it was true and put it in Wikipedia. If you have a source feel free to put it in, but we can't just believe an editor without a source, especially in a BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)