User talk:UnequivocalAmbivalence

Welcome!

Hello, UnequivocalAmbivalence, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 09:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UnequivocalAmbivalence, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! UnequivocalAmbivalence, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Burr–Hamilton duel 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. ^{(talk to me) (My edits)} @ 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses:Sorry I forgot an edit summary because I first posted a lengthy explanation of my impending edit on the article's talk page. If you still feel my removal was in error after reading my explanation please feel free to re-add it, but I strongly feel it would need a better citation. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, go ahead and ignore the warning. However, you should have added an edit summary of "see talk page", just in case. ;-)--I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. ^{(talk to me) (My edits)} @ 22:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses:Yeah that was my bad, thanks for the reminder, will make sure to do that in future! :) UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Your work flagging up various issues with sources on the Marley article and elsewhere is highly appreciated. Thanks. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your steadfast determination to verify that sources actually say what editors are using them to substantiate is highly commendable. I congratulate you for the meticulous approach to this Sysyphean endeavour. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Huh? Leslie Kong died in 1971 of a heart attack, you special snowflakes interpret everything as a threat, don't you? That must really suck, too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I am wrong would you care to enlighten me as to your reason for mentioning him?UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He died from heart attack in 1971, so if you ask me if someone killed him I would point to His Majesty. Do you suppose Haile Selassie is threatening to that person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question. What was your reason for mentioning Leslie Kong? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I wasn't talking to you. If I mention the name of anyone who lived well before my time as a historical figure John Foster Dulles, the Queen Mother or Claude Debussy, will you say I am threatening you because they died?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Racism in Italy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 January 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Racism in Italy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Dispute resolution for the German article and PRDP

I requested assistance at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce Lee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

birth name was ''[[Li (李)|Lee]] Jun-fan'' (李振藩).<ref name=Bio-TBLS>振藩; Mandarin [[Pinyin]]: Zhènfán){{harvnb|Lee|1989}}</ref> The name homophonically means "return again", and was given to Lee by his
society)|Triads]] and a supposed curse on him and his family.<ref>{harvnb|Bishop|2004|p=157}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Answering a Critic' section of Therese Neumann bio.

From user JSal Hello , In regards to “Answering a Critic,” and Albert Vogel’s credentials for writing authoritatively about her. He was not a casual personal friend of the subject. As a US Army intelligence officer attached to Patton’s Third army he was actively working in Bavaria at the end of WWII and was able to renew his acquaintance with Therese (first started in 1927) and her family as well as learn firsthand of his uncle’s public execution by the Gestapo.

After returning to the United States he made return visits with his wife and three trips with his son who drove him all over Bavaria when he was gathering information for this book. Quoting from the introduction of his book “Altogether, I have interviewed an untold number of people over a span of roughly forty years. My standards have been set very high; as mentioned, no one was ever interviewed unless he actually knew Therese personally. Included in this group are Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich, Archibishop Andreas Rohracher of Salzburg, Abbot Willibald Mangraf of Vilshofen, and many priests, professors, educators and lay people of all walks of life. The end result of the hundreds of hours of hard work is included in this book.”

Are all biographers completely and automatically disqualified because they knew their subject personally?

As to “shortening” the story referenced in “Answering a Critic”. I don’t see how it could be shortened and retain context.

And as far as writing the entry in the proper format for Wikipedia, I make no claim whatsoever for knowing how to do that. Perhaps as an editor you could do that? Unless you are claiming that Albert Vogel is absolutely not qualified to write about Therese Neumann would you please revert your edit and style it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.117.244 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem of due weight. Just because something is properly sourced does not mean it belongs. We are supposed to represent view points with their relative acceptance within the relevant areas of academia. So a quote by a family friend that just emphasizes her personal rejection of the professional opinion of critics does not deserve the same weight, or amount of space, as the opinions of medical professionals. Anecdotes that serve no purpose other than to cast doubt upon the accepted consensus of medical professionals are at odds with core Wikipedia policy, especially considering that her claims relate directly to medical issues, an area on Wikipedia with the most stringent requirements for sourcing. A few policy pages that would be worth reading are WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Also, the appropriate place to discuss changes to an article is on that article's talk page, where, as per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, UnequivocalAmbivalence. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gregg York"

Hi, UnequivocalAmbivalence. I saw your comments in Talk:Fred Hampton#Assassination Quote revisited about a quote that M. Wesley Swearingen has attributed to someone named "Gregg York". I have had multiple discussions about that same quote over the past few years (see User talk:Location#Gregg York and User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 25#COINTELPRO) after attempting to remove it from Fred Hampton, COINTELPRO, and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It looks like you were successful in removing it from Fred Hampton, so I was wondering if you be supportive of me attempting to remove it from the other two again. Cheers! -Location (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Misty Snow

You've got to stop the edit warring. If you think there are references that refer to her as a politician, bring that up in the talk page. Stop the edit war. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should heed your own advice as you have reverted two separate editors in your repeated attempts to assert your point, so calling someone else out for edit warring strikes me as quite hypocritical. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, UnequivocalAmbivalence. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, UnequivocalAmbivalence. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Lazarus appellate issues

A belated thanks for doing this, as it was fixable by editing.

I thought at first that perhaps someone else, an overeager law student or associate of the Lazarus family, had added this, but no, I was the guilty party. And on review, I saw your point—that as worded its connection to the sentence ahead of it was unclear.

So, I dived into the sources again, and found that indeed Tickle had cited Maestas as the controlling authority for his argument that the trial judge had been entirely off base allowing the evidence obtained under the warrant via a rote (to him) application of the good-faith exception. I just had cited the wrong pages of the brief.

So, I:

found a better version of the brief online than the scribd version,
swapped it in to the footnote,
changed the page numbers in that footnote,
and reworded the sentence in question so it's clear that the article is referencing Trickle's brief and not just up and saying this.

I think it is thus a better article. Thanks for making me make the improvements! Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sake Dean Mahomed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we defeating the purpose of Wikipedia by biting new comers?

I am not associated with any group, I am not being paid to edit, I didn't attend funded classes or have been part of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing to hide the truth and defeat the main purpose of making Wikipedia a neutral encyclopedia of information. I am here to state the facts that are grossly underrepresented.
There are more than one billion Muslims in this world and more than 430 Million Arabs who failed to edit a key article about the murder of an autistic Palestinian man by Israeli troops in occupied East Jerusalem and when I tried I was censored. The sentence I have added and later removed by you and another user of Wikipedia says describing East Jerusalem where the incident took place " a Palestinian territory, illegally occupied by Israel Military since 1967 and subject to continuous and systematic violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people." with a reference to the united nations resolution that exactly states this summary - please feel free to read the bottom of page 3/8. In fact there are dozens of UN resolutions be it at the council or assembly levels stating this fact. Now why would you remove that? I get the 500 edit 30 day rule for the Arab Israeli conflict pages and I agree with this rule in general to avoid disruption and free flow of factual information but there are exceptions to this rule. When you are a new Wikipedia comer stating a fact with a solid reference from the UN and someone just says this is opinionated then removes it this only points in the opposite direction of why Wikipedia project came about. There is not even a picture of the victim or any of his family. Compare that to George Floyd murder which happened around the same time in the US for example Only a picture of left wing Israeli's protesting his murder as if Palestinians don't exist. I am hoping that you can reinstate the content that was removed or state factually why it's not correct otherwise we are defeating the main purpose of the Wikipedia project.

MYS1979 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Update 21 June 2020: I came here to see if there is a response. Unfortunately I found the response manifesting itself in further revisions made by you to the article. I appreciate you taking personal interest in this article above and beyond just enforcing non EC editors 500 edit 30 day tenure rule by for example removing a direct quote from Israeli media Haaretz that captures the testimonial of the caregiver which no one protested or complained about but at the same time keeping the change of removing the word "warning" from describing the shots that murdered Al-Hallaq. Both of these changes were made by me a Non EC editor. So clearly you are using other measure to decide what to keep and what to remove from this article above and beyond the 500 edit 30 day tenure rule. If so I am yet to hear the reasons of removing the summary of that UN general assembly resolution or the quote from Haaretz Israeli media given by the caregiver about the murder of the Palestinian autistic man?[reply]

The guidelines of Wikipedia are meant to ensure no one stops the free flow of reliable information and encourages editors to engage with each other to achieve that goal. Looking forward to hear back from you and if I am mistaken I will apologize to you and Thank you for you stepping in.

MYS1979 (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to see a response to the concern mentioned above. The cherry picking of facts is troubling on this important article, we are almost victimizing Al Hallaq twice. The references are not even Arabic or Palestinian sources, they are from the Israeli media and the UN assembly. MYS1979 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]