User talk:Vyselink/Archive 3

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

jehovah's witnesses

The sources are not properly researched. I, being a Jehovah's witness know very well the attributes and ways of our organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionpax2309 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the article, then do so on the talk page. As far as I can see, the sources are there. Familiarize yourself with WP guidelines and challenge them if you feel they do not meet those guidelines.

As a JW, you are unfortunately very biased and probably uninformed as to the history of your organization. You have taken the time to create an account, so don't get blocked for doing stupid things. Vyselink (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not biased. I have watched all our movies, read our books and magazines, and I have talked with the elders in my congregation. I know well the history of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionpax2309 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A) Please sign your posts by using four ~ after you are done.

B) The phrase "I have watched all of OUR books and magazines, and I have talked with the ELDERS in MY congregation" shows your bias towards any source that is non-JW in nature.

C) Clearly you don't know the history of your organization, as if you did you would not have made the edits that you did. Vyselink (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what, you really don't have much room to talk here.

(A) I'm a Jehovah's Witness

(B) you aren't

(C) those "non-jw sources" could be apostates trying to vandalize the information so silence yourself.

oh, p.s. until you become a JW don't talk about the matter. Orionpax2309 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionpax2309 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A) I was raised a Witness, so I have an intimate knowledge of how the organization works.

B) I am a PhD student whose doctoral dissertation is being written on the JW's, so I know their history a lot better than you do.

C) "Apostate" is the term JW's learn to use when they don't wish to know the facts about the matter at hand. It's the equivalent of a child sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I'm not listening".

D) Once again you have forgotten to sign your post.

E) Unless your future posts have something constructive to say, or a legitimate point to be made, I will simply be deleting them as responding to you is no longer worth even the minimal effort that I have to put in. Vyselink (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are reverting to WRONG historical information - Cease & Desist

vyselink, if you undo my edit (again!) about Jackson Browne at Seabrook, I will send it to dispute resolution and attempt to get you banned from that page, because you are reverting to INCORRECT information about the year and event of Browne's involvement at Seabrook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversong (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"YOUR response on my talk page

B) I reverted you once, not many times, which is perfectly acceptable, indeed encouraged, on WP (see WP:BRD)

C) Please by all means bring me to dispute resolution, it'll be solved in a matter of minutes as 1) there is no dispute, and 2) you are the one who has caused an issue where there wasn't one.

D) While I (following WP policy) will not revert again, I will be bringing it up for discussion on the Jackson Browne talk page. You being "an organizer" of said event is both WP:OR and irrelevant.

E) Sign your posts."

Nice to see that you are lying about the content and tone of my comment.

There was no "threat" - merely a promise that, if you continue to abuse your editorial privileges, I will pursue appropriate sanctions under WP policy.

That you admit to a policy of reverting factually-correct edits merely proves that you are unfit to be a WP editor. Riversong (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(Tho pointless, I am going to repost my response to Riversong that I posted on his page, as well as his response, below)

Once again, by all means bring me to a dispute resolution. However, the tone of your comments, and the fact that I had reverted it ONCE is not in question, merely fact. However, I have edited the section again to reflect your issues, i.e. making sure that Browne is not falsely implied as having been a part of the demonstration, but rather a performer the following year. Also, your rewording multiplied, by literally a factor of 10, how many people sources say were at the demonstration. It was 2000, not 20000. I have kept the far more reliable source, i.e. the Time article, over your non RS nuke free site. Hopefully this solves the problem, and stems the beginning of a manufactured issue by you between us. Vyselink (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And, once again, I have reverted your abusive edits and will continue to confront and expose your historical revisionism. As my cited reference (and every reference on the 1978 rally at Seabrook) makes plain, my numbers are accurate and your ignorance of the event is obvious and profound.

Additionally, my cited reference was to Harvey Wasserman, a well-respected historian, activist, my predecessor as Clamshell Alliance media coordinator and a published author on this topic. Your reference for an event that preceded Jackson Browne's participation at Seabrook, regardless of source, is irrelevant to that page.

And, it's important to add that you also misrepresent WP edit/revert policy: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting" Riversong (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I have asked for more opinions on the Jackson Browne talk page and also the Wikipedia Pop Music Project page (here). Vyselink (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't revert without researching the topic

I'm undoing your revert to my edit on Clara Oswald because it is a factual error. Please watch the episode - the episode is the source - before making any further reverts. Thank you. PS. The same goes for the other material I added - or you have to blank that entire section because the entire thing is OR by your standards. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)