Pokerplayer513

Welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 331dot (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Georges St-Pierre

Hi Pokerplayer 513, Thank you for providing the source " http://www.mmaweekly.com/jacksons-introduces-an-mma-belt-ranking-system" that indicated GSP has a black belt in Gaidojutsu. I have edit the Infoxbox with reference included. Here is the link to Wikipedia referencing Help:Referencing for beginners. Have a look and hope it helps.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Please read WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Recruiting like-minded editors from Reddit to help edit disputed articles is forbidden. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Political Correctness

PC has a non-negative meaning. Without the idea of there being a positive form of Political Correctness, the idea that there can be PC that is somehow too far, or too strenuous makes no sense. The article is set up to introduce the term, and then to introduce its usage. By the same token "Health & Safety" is a similarly neutral term, but it is often used in a negative way with inverted commas to suggest some negative connotation of being excessive. We would not therefore go to the H&S article and write "H&S is a pejorative". Your edit eliminated the introduction of the term as anything other than a pejorative which is entirely misleading. Koncorde (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde I don't mean to be demanding, but can you provide a source that explains that? I don't really follow the logic. I also think adding scare quotes around any word changes the meaning. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

In short: defining something as a pejorative that is only a pejorative when viewed from a specifically contentious point of view, changes the meaning and intent of the article. Both Political Correctness and Health and Safety are routinely associated with the concepts of having gone too far, or being too much, or having lost some sense of perspective, but the reality is usually that the accusation is coming from a specifically non neutral pov. (Typically politically motivated) or a misrepresentation of the situation to push a specific narrative. The Wikipedia article on PC is about all of PC, not just the bit that is accused of being too much, or "gone mad", or as some bogey man political football. Koncorde (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde I think the page on Social justice warrior demonstrates what I think is the best way to describe PC. It says SJW is pejorative even though it can be used non-pejoratively. SJW can both be a pejorative word and the idea that "SJW's have gone too far" (like PC) makes sense. To describe something as "pc" means you don't agree with it. "Has pc gone to far" type articles are always against the subject being written about and serves as a rhetorical question, not a real question. Also the page on PC actually is almost entirely about it's usage as a pejorative and I think the lede should reflect that. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

SJW is a pejorative. That there are some obscure earlier examples doesn't change the pejorative primacy. In contrast Social Justice Advocate or similar would not carry the same sneering tone.

In comparison, Political Correctness is a thing. The idea of being politically correct predates the pejorative usage, and in fact it retains a very real meaning (and non ironic usage).

People who use "Political Correctness" as a pejorative however are misrepresenting the core premise, or often sending up the concept of tone policing or similar. It's the equivalent of "I bet I'd be arrested for saying that these days" while at the same time liking on Youtube some 1980's comedy they consider edgy.

That there are more examples and history of people getting it wrong, accusing people of it, or just accusing the concept itself of being the thing that is wrong with society does not make it right. At present we represent the origin, the pejorative sense, and it's mis-use. Swapping out it's appropriate use would be the equivalent of changing the definition of Irony to meet people's misinterpretation. We don't. Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde the article only talks about it's pejorative use except for the lede which is why it seems confusing. Where does it talk about it's non-pejorative usage? Can you give me an example of when "it retains a very real meaning (and non ironic usage)"? The article doesn't seem to contain any. Also, if you could give real life examples, that would help me out, your metaphors regarding health and safety and irony are making sense for me. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't, it talks about its historical origins also. Unfortunately looking for people who publish their own guidelines on how to be politically correct is a bit of a needle in a haystack situation because they have actively switched their terminology away from actually using the term (instead switching to guidance about inclusivity). For an example of its non ironic use see inclusivity type guidance from the UK government. It even contains a non-ironic use of "don't be too politically correct". However even though the entire premise is about using the correct language, it does not actually say it is an article about "political correctness". Contrast with the UK's NICE statement which explicitly says "Person-centred language reflects good manners and sensitivity, not political correctness" where it is using the pejorative sense and / or distancing itself from the pejorative cultural understanding while at the same time writing out a euphemistic example of what constitutes political correctness "person centered language reflecting good manners and sensitivity" is an example of political correctness.

There are then articles by groups such as Civitas (unfortunately cannot link for some reason) blathering on about how PC has taken over the world and switched around the meanings of words using it as a pejorative, but discussing it's actual impact and changes in a literal sense which from an alternative point of view would be just "good manners and sensitivity". Koncorde (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Greetings. Users with fewer than 500 edits may not edit Arab–Israeli conflict-related material anywhere in the encyclopedia. Your edit was good, but next time please bring it up on the talk page instead. Your edit counter can be seen at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Pokerplayer513. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sangdeboeuf. Thank you for notifying me of this. I actually had a good time reading about Arab–Israeli conflict and it's application. I didn't know broadly construed meant the ban essentially applies for anything that mentions Israel or Palestine. I'll keep that in mind from now on. That being said, I thought it was obvious that the edit I made was a copy edit. That's why the first time I just put "CE" in the edit summary and instead of going to the talk page for the second edit/revert, I thought explaining the reasoning in the edit summary would be sufficient. Ignoring the rules just seemed like an easier route than the talk page. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not just anything mentioning Israel or Palestine. As described in the same paragraph you edited, Omar stated that she was talking about the Gaza War, which is prety self-evidently part of the conflict; see Gaza–Israel conflict. There's an ongoing discussion related to this at Talk:Ilhan Omar#ARBPIA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Patriarchy

Hi, thank you for the message. However, I did not find any archeological evidence at the stated page number (page 118). The evidence cited comes from anthropological field studies on modern hunter-gatherer societies, so I was wondering if you can describe what specific archaeological evidence they found and how that suggests that pre-historic hunter-gatherers were egalitarian? Thanks. Jounus (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Jounus, correct. Page 118 does not give evidence for it's claim, but that is not required here. The claim simply need to be made from a WP:RS which that book by Michael Adas is. "Yet the world's first known civilizations with written records were more or less patriarchal. Historians thus must familiarize themselves with the scholarship of archaeologists and anthropologists who have investigated the prehistoric Neolithic Age, humans turned from gathering and hunting to agriculture." Because the book is written by a historian/scholar and is RS the statement is taken at it's word and the evidence is the entire rest of the book. Further later in the section, archeologist Marija Gimbutas makes the same claim and the source is provided. Rather than removing archeology, adding additional viewpoints that refute her point would be better imo. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Question on asking editors to self-revert

Hello Guy Macon,

I've had this question for a while, but is there a reason to ask someone to "self-revert" instead of just reverting the edit yourself? I'm asking you for no other reason than you're experienced in Wikipedia and I saw you ask someone to do it on the Talk:Sealioning page.

Thanks, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good question!

WP:3RR says "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period... The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

So let's say that each of us has reverted the other three times. We shouldn't have gone that far, but with each of us at three reverts, whoever does a 4th revert (even if it is to another part of the page) would be crossing the bright line from 3RR to 4RR. If one of us self reverts, however, WP:3RRNO says that this doesn't change him from 3RR to 4RR. It changes him from 3RR to 2RR! Same if you are at 2RR -- another revert of someone else's change moves you to 3RR but a self revert moves you to 1RR.

It also is more polite. If you make an edit and I revert you it isn't as polite as it would be if you made an edit and I asked you to self-revert. Let's say I lost my cool and wrote something that I shouldn't have, but not quite bad enough to where our rule at WP:TPOC says anyone can undo it. If you ask me to self-revert, it gives me a chance to apologize, take it back, and make it clear that I understand that I should not have lost my temper. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks Guy. --Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)