Melaku4444
Melaku4444, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Melaku4444! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC) |
March 2022
edit
Hello, I'm Ue3lman. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mulugeta Seraw, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ue3lman (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to demand that articles remain impartial, I would recommend being impartial yourself. Not only were your edits on Louis Farrakhan obviously biased, but supported by an unreliable source at that. You should read up on the neutral point of view policy as well as WP:CITE. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Specify exactly which part of my post was "bias"? The language I used to describe him was neutral. Moreover, I quoted him in his own speeches and I will provide additional sources to support my post such as the 1980 power speech as well among other non-bias sources. Before you revert my edit you need to specify exactly what you disagree with that is not supported. Melaku4444 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because they didn't take an impartial view on Farrakhan, going against the existing sources just like your most recent edit did. For example, you replaced "black supremacist" with "black nationalist", "anti white" with controversial" (which you now added "so called" to, which is your own commentary), you obviously whitewashed his anti-semitism by removing references and text describing him as often being described as such, added unencylopedic words like "historic", and claimed Farrakhan was censored because he was banned from Facebook as an extremeist. It is obvious you are a supporter of Farrakhan, and you're attempting to alter the article to portray him in a more positive manner, going against the neutral point of view policy. I would suggest you refrain from doing so as breaching Wikipedia policy can lead to being blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a bit late but I am going to respond anyway because I didn't see this reply.
I'd like to know what gives you the right to dictate the standard of what you believe is objectively "neutral" and accurate in the description of this man? Especially when many people would disagree with some of the words used to describe him in this article.
Many of the articles surrounding pro black figures have very... curious descriptions. Take Malcolm X for example which reads: 'A controversial figure accused of preaching racism and violence.' while placing emphasis on his criminal history as the introduction to his article followed by his disillusionment with other pro black institutions.
I'd like to believe that my edits were in fact neutral. It's also important to note that the opinions of these controversial figures tend to vary due to sociocultural differences.
I replaced "black supremacist" with "black nationalist" because it is a necessary distinction to make and "anti white" with "controversial" because his position is inherently reactionary to the racist imposition of the society he's living in.
Lastly with regards to his so called anti-semetism. He has had controversy with people of European descent for obvious reasons. By that logic it would be like calling the victim of the Holocaust Anti German. I am an Ethiopian Jew. He has never espoused disdain for us, nor Morrocan Jews, etc. In fact he has came out of his mouth and made this distinction. I don't follow him but I think it's important to preserve the truth.
Anyway, I edited the article again and kept the accusations of anti-semetism as ACCUSATIONS and placed it in the CONTROVERSY section where it belongs. I didn't elaborate too much but added his music career and pan African sensibilities. Melaku4444 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- And you were yet again reverted, (not by me). I understand you have concerns, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We write what the sorces say, not what we percieve as truth ourselves. You would be better off discussing the matter on the talk page of the article instead of persistently making edits that quickly are reverted. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems more like the editor's are more interested in slander than objective historical analysis. But you know what I will try again and cite my sources this time.
Neutrality????
editThere is very blatant slander that undermines the neutrality of the subject. I added the fact that he was a black nationalist and pan Africanist and a violinist and it was taken off Melaku4444 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.