User talk:Chrisvacc

Hi Chrisvacc. I'm guessing you're going to be uninterested in seeing this, but I'm extremely concerned with your behavior regarding the Jonathan Haidt article.

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me? If you're not familiar with Wikipedia's behavioral policies, then this may be a good time to do so, starting with WP:CIVIL. Much of the behavior that is common across the Internet is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Editors are expected to work collaboratively with respect and civility. "Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,892,682 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss." --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can convince you to work collaboratively with me?

Yes

Chrisvacc (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this isn't really getting anywhere, but to be honest I thought at first you were just tagging and running. But we'll figure this out in the AM since it's almost 12 here, and try to figure out what the issues are and what can be done to resolve them. And I'm being a little tongue in cheek with some of my comments on the Talk page.

Chrisvacc (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response.

I ran across this article soon after it was created, as you can see in the edit history. I've not kept up with it, nor been involved with addressing the questionable editing around it.

Given our interactions so far, being "tongue in cheek" doesn't help, not that I think it an accurate description.

COI problems are touchy. I don't have enough evidence at this point to write up a COIN report. If you'll look a the editing history and page statistics, the potential coi-editors appear obvious to me: @Corianna:, @Ethical user nyc:. (Corianna hasn't edited in years. I'm awaiting a response from Ethical user nyc.) There are related accounts, and lots of SPA editing. Problems with the articles about Haidt's books appear worse, but I've only glanced at them, noticing the sockpuppetry which appears to be in check. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll open a new discussion on the Talk page and see what we can do about the citations.

Chrisvacc (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For now:

The multiple issues tag was a good idea and I’m mad I didn’t even think of that.

So my thoughts Re: WP:BLP, I think we can work to find some good third party citations. But I also think most of the WP:BLP rules were made to avoid Libel and sensationalism. So to me, “The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule” and WP:IAR. The spirit of those rules was to avoid sensationalist content. But I agree that if a statement is contentious, it should be deleted. Regarding some of the content in the article (ie Areas of Research and The Coddling of the American Mind,) we should just find better citations as The Coddling is a very popular book, and I believe is listed as a NYT Notable book.

May I ask, what were the issues you had with with the citations I provided? As far as I can tell they’re legitimate papers from psychology journals. But then again, I’m more used to writing papers than I am with Wikipedia’s citation policy. But those citations would have been appropriate. But regardless, we’ll find good citations for those as it will improve the article. The statement about to The Coddling has to be in there because there are three books, and taking it out makes it seem like the article hasn’t been updated in a few years, but I'm not sure how you would cite a book's existence other than just citing the book itself.

Thanks for the response

Re BLP - high quality sources are required. The rule here is that we're striving to create a serious encyclopedia. Use of Wikipedia for soapboxing and promotion undermine Wikipedia's main goal.

The new review for Coddling had criticisms and context that belong in the article for the book, which is a poor article almost certainly created by an undeclared paid editor. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the Coddling page yet. I'm talking about the deletion of the line His third book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), was written with Greg Lukianoff from the Intro. The claim is essentially that the book exists. I feel like the best way to cite it is simply the ISBN.

Chrisvacc (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're getting into discussion that belongs on the article talk page, so briefly:

That puts us into notability, lede, and weight issues.

He wrote a third book. Is it important enough that it deserves mention in the lede? As the articles about him and the book are now, I'm saying that it doesn't deserve mention (and is rather promotional for the book). --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Absolutely think so. It was a New York Times bestseller and listed as Bloombergs #1 Book of the year:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-best-books/

The Best Books of 2018

Our annual list of what some of the most powerful people in finance were reading this year is heavy on the drawbacks of technology.

Technology has already infiltrated every human interaction, but 2018 may be remembered as the year we truly started to grapple with the consequences. So perhaps it's no surprise that when Bloomberg asked dozens of business leaders to name the best book they read this year, The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, received the most votes.

I'll copy and paste this discussion to the talk page

Chrisvacc (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved to this to the Talk page, but wanted reply to the advert stuff.

I do see a handful of SPA Accounts that are only editing only Haidt related articles (ie Heterodox, the Coddling). That said, I do know Jon through my professional career and I highly doubt he's paying Wikipedia editors. I can't speak for Penguin_Books, but do large publishers put promotional materials out on Wikipedia? My assumption would be 'no', but I've never looked into it. There's clear sockpuppetry going on, but think it's more likely fan's that are making the edits. I don't think he's even read his own Wikipedia entries, and he wouldn't approve of advert-like editing. I mean a large amount of his work was devoted to bringing neutrality back to the universities, which was the whole point of the Heterodox thing. You can see even in the video here: https://www.___tube.com/watch?v=3Bklwq2LBjI He would not apporve of biased editing, and almost certainly wouldn't pay someone to create promotional articles for him. It's more likely fan-edits.

Someone else certainly would pay given the political ramifications of some of his work. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Chrisvacc (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this convo to Talk. Chrisvacc (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this guideline we tend to stick with secondary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

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.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Chrisvacc (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add comments in a closed discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't close a discussion where we're adding comments. Chrisvacc (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chrisvacc. I saw your request for a third opinion for Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Jogging versus running. Unfortunately I had to decline the request because more than two editors are involved. You might want to try other dispute resolution processes, which are detailed here. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy Chrisvacc (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just saw your comment, but the RFC hasn't started yet, the point of the thread is to come to an agreement on the formulation of the question before we actually start (and list) an RFC. Make sense?  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry! Thanks – Chrisvacc (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AzureCitizen: I say we just vote. I dont think anyone will object to that phrasing. It's too confusing and everyone is just voting anyway lol. – Chrisvacc (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're eager to get started, I can certainly appreciate that (glancing at the threads up the page, it's obvious people feel passionate about this issue). But the best way to resolve disputes is to work methodically towards shared understand, agreement, consensus to support inclusion/exclusion, etc. The first step is to make sure we get a simple, logical, neutral, fair, reasonable question set up as the base of the RFC. This is because some RFCs start out with too narrow, too board, malformed, slanted, or otherwise defectively formulated questions, and then as editors pile on with their comments, you see accusations that the RFC wasn't done properly. Don't worry, the formulation will get tamped down quickly enough and then people can add their support/oppose !vote comments. It's the Wikipedia way... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following your rant about "leaking the page to the press" and "bullying Social Justice Warriors" it is clear that you do not have the ability to approach the issue sensibly and so I have blocked you from editing the article. This does not affect your ability to edit the rest of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this section on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrisvacc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No, I don't think that's fair. Can you find any evidence of disruptive editing in the Article's history? Search the article history page for my edits. User Contribution Search - Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery The Talk Page is not the Article, and I'm not sure why someone. Most of the edits I've made were cleaning up punctiation and clumsy wording. You should block someone if they're actually being disruptive to an article, not because you feel they might possibly be sometime in the future - especially when the evidence actuallys points in the opposite direction. All my contributions have been positive, so I dont see a reason for a block. If you read the rest of the conversation prior to the rant, it's about Neutrality and many editors have been interjecting their political opinion into articles. Neutrality is a major pillar to Wikipedia. This is an encyclypedia - not a editorial section. But regardless - I come to consensus before I make edits and actually we've just been formulating a RfC vote to come to consensus on this issue. I don't think I'm causing any issues. The Talk page isn't the article, and I haven't been disruptive to the article whatsoever. But regardless - it appears we've come to a consensus anyway.

Decline reason:

BLP applies to all pages, not just mainspace. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I didn't include the Talk page (my error) - I have now. If you're calling other editors "bullying SJWs" and threatening to go to the press then you are actually being disruptive. As I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW comment, your biases) when editing, then any other admin who answers this may unblock; but I don't see that at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Well now this is a much bigger problem than I thought. I just went through your edits and now I realize it's not just the power users, but administration are involved too. We were actually just on the verge of resolving the original issue via RfC, and was going to drop it anyway but a ban just makes my case for me. That ban encouraged me to go into your edit history and now I see this isn't just a problem among power users, but administrators too. You supressed information on the basis of "BLP violation", but there were no BLP violations. BLP clearly states:

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction

There are NO violations of Wikipedia's rules. Tthe SJW comment isn't a bias. I'm a moderate liberal myself and have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life - but that's not an excuse to use a neutral Encyclopedia as an outlet for your beliefs or unconscious biases. This is about Journalistic integrity, not some ulterior motives. Regarding the priors it's completely relevant and there are no BLP violations:

This is completely relevant to the controversy because McMichael stated he recognized him which is why almost every outlet are reporting on it (except Wikipedia, of course.) This just shows that administrators are using their power to slant articles. So this is actually a bigger problem than I thought. When it's powerusers, that's one thing - but when Administrators are doing it too that's a whole nother ballgame. How is showing the press a 'threat.' If there are no attempts to whitewash information then nobody has anything to worry about. Journalists would just look it over and say 'nothing to see here.' You have deleted perfectly valid comments saying "BLP" but there were no BLP violations. It says it right there. If there's a conviction - it's allowed. BLP rules are there for Wikipedia to avoid Libel.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral Point of View

Now that I look into your edits you actually deleted comments citing "BLP" when there were no BLP violations. Like this one:

You deleted this and cited "BLP" as the reason for deletion. But there was no BLP violation. Now it's clear which side you're on, and I hadn't even noticed until you applied a ban. I would have never noticed. He was convicted. It's relevant to the case, so what's the issue? Because this really appears like an attempt to suppress relevant information.

Then there's this comment:

For one, we certainly don't need WP:UNDUE laundry lists of people trying to attempt to paint Arbery in a bad light for previous issues that are irrelevant to his shooting; some have been removed today. Basically, if you're going down that route, it's best not to post. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources cover it in a biography then that may not be UNDUE, however this isn't a biography, it's about a single event. We aren't going to point out that the victim had a conviction for a minor offence X years ago, because it's not relevant. And I think we know the direction from which most of the (mostly new) accounts who are pushing to add this stuff are coming from. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this isn't some Alt-right conspiracy to paint some kid in a bad light. This isn't some racist Stormfront plot. This is upholding the standards of journalistic integrety by presenting all the information and letting people decide for themselves. But of course it's easier to resort to the "he's a racist!" witch-hunt and supress. Where's the BLP violation? Where's the DUE violation. All I see is Ad Hominem reasoning accusing people of being conservatives

The goal is to fix this this Neutrality problem. There are systemic Neutrality issues on Wikipedia. This issue isn't controversial. Ideological bias on Wikipedia Often exposing issues to journalistic scrutany holds orginizations accountable. What do you suggest? How do you suggest fixing this systemic neutrality issue? Of power users, and now administrators using their position to push a non-neutral POV? If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. For now, an article on this seems like a good plan: "Systemic Bias in Wikipedia: how bias among Power Users and Administrators affects free information" citing how relevant information was supressed by Power Users and Administrators.

So ban me from whatever you'd like. It reminds me of this recent video from CNN. In a speech a valedictorian accused the administration of being autharitarian so they cut off his mic. “How dare he call us authoritative? We don’t restrict rights. Cut his mic!” It's funny - I had already dropped this but now the issue is actually bigger. – Chrisvacc (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chrisvacc, please calm down. Your threat of going to the press was block-worthy. We are seeing opposition to the prior offense being mentioned, but yet we are also proceeding towards an RFC. It's not helpful to keep crying out bias when we are trying to settle this with an RfC. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "power users", are any powers being used here? starship.paint (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright - I'm just an activist for Neutrality in Journalism. - Chrisvacc (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right... if the thing comes to a vote and the community comes to a consensus.. I think that will be fair. It's when people go around reversing edits that there's an issue. - Chrisvacc (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is obscene. I'm a new editor with almost no experience and am completely discouraged and disheartened by the way this sausage gets made. I was participating in an open, good-faith discussion on the Talk page about whether criminal history was relevant, WP:DUE, etc. I was redacted and given a "final warning" (and first one) for supposedly posting unsourced facts. I had cited the sources before, so I re-cited them — literally nothing but a quote from the Daily Beast that sourced the fact I'd claimed — and that was redacted. Then I was blocked for again having the temerity to participate in a Talk page discussion of whether criminal history is WP:DUE. It's impossible to explain why criminal history is WP:DUE without stating what that criminal history is—but stating the history, even when simply quoting directly from a mainstream source, gets one blocked for supposedly violating WP:DUE. It's utterly Orwellian.

The fact is that ONE OF THE GUYS HELPED PROSECUTE THE GUY HE'S ACCUSED OF MURDERING TWO YEARS BEFORE. In what world is that not relevant? But I literally had people telling me that was WP:UNDUE because I couldn't prove that McMichael recognized Arbery at the time he was chasing him—something I had never claimed and which no one could prove. McMichael claims he recognized Arbery from prior security footage—does that "prove" he did? Of course not—but the fact that he claims it is all that can ever be proven, and that's obviously "relevant" too, since it may well be the backbone of his defense.

One of the people who has most eagerly attacked me is claiming on the Talk page that there is no evidence Arbery had a criminal record—after making sure I was redacted and blocked for citing and sourcing that information:

What criminal record? I've looked at RS and can't find any indication that he has been convicted of a parking violation. Even if there is a record, clearly nothing should be included unless it is directly relevant. We don't normally go after the person killed like this. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, how can you discuss his criminal record when no one has shown that he has one or what it is if it exists? O3000 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

He's also commenting on the fact that you "emailed" me:

"Incidentally, FYI, one of those you blocked just emailed the other you blocked.[17] Haven't seen that before. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)" Who do these people think they are? [reply]

I strongly believe that we have both been blocked and our well-sourced information on Arbery's record redacted in order to swing the Priors RfC taking place on the Talk page. This is how they censor Wikipedia – by harassing, insulting, redacting, and blocking people right before they "build "consensus". Tambourine60 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, he's watching your page that closely?! – Chrisvacc (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting. I work in the Social Science and if you study psychology people are soo transparant. Our unconsusness controls so much of our behavior. For example the Bill Clinton impeachment. Almost 100% of Democrats found him 'innocent' and almost 100% of republicans found him 'guilty'... might that suggest that their motivations are not to actually prove guilt or innocence? It's more likely that Democrats wanted to keep him and Republicans wanted to throw him out. Humans, most of the time, actually don't use their reasoning ability to find the truth. They use it to find evidence for what they already believe. So people on here are actually cheating and to anyone who studies psychology it's way obvious that people are saying "BLP violation" for things they just don't like, so they pull out a rule that will help them accomplish their goals. Their goals aren't really BLP... it's just that they want to paint a narrative and will use whatver rules they can find to further that cause.

We all think we're objectively observing the facts - but we're not. So unless you really make an active effort to be a truth seeker, you're really just controlled by your biases. There's a great TED talk called "Soldier vs Scout mindset." I wouldn't be discouraged. I spent a lot of time in academia and it's the same thing there. The overt liberal bias. - Chrisvacc (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chrisvacc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I request for this block to be lifted now. It's been 6 days. Admin Black Kite said it could be lifted if I agree to not be disruptive: link where Black Kite stated this. And that I could be unblocked if I understood how this was disruptive link to his second comment I can agree to that, so can this block be reviewed? It's been like 6 days. Thank you. Chrisvacc - ✆ 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone named Kaden vandalized your comment on Galendia's talk page. I just wanted to let you know. Wale18 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao, that was a somewhat odd piece of vandalism. Thanks for letting me know - I reversed it. – Chrisvacc (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are socking with NewsGuard, you are in big trouble and this is your one chance to admit it. starship.paint (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? Chrisvacc (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Chris. I'm so disappointed. It's over. You're done. I'm afraid you chose the wrong path, twice. starship.paint (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will take time for me to file a sockpuppet investigation request. Now is the time you admit it to save your ass from worse punishment. starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about. My comment was in regards to appealing the ban. Do whatver you want. – Chrisvacc (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just said "you might be unblocked before the vote ends".. unless I'm misunderstaning what you said – Chrisvacc (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you admitted it and didn't waste my time. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc. I'm sorry that it has come to this. starship.paint (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite: - FYI. starship.paint (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really are wasting your time. Read the block. User:Black Kite told me "I have only needed to block one IP from the article so far, and have unblocked them after they indicated they understood the issues they were causing. I hope the same will be the case here." and told me "I said, if you can promise to control your annoyance (and, by the sounds of the SJW comment, your biases) when editing"... I could have just responded "okay I'll chill out" but instead I posted a long rant because I'm over this article. You guys can do what you want with it. - Chrisvacc (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrisvacc. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Intellectual.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and made a minor edit, but the article is very difficult to read. It's clear the article is written from an islamic perspective and would be difficult for someone outside of that culture to read it.

I would put this banner up:

{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}}

Otherwise the article looks good at a quick glance – Chrisvacc - ✆ 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your frank input that shall help us improve the article further.

Few points I do agree with you, that is why I am 'positively' scouting to get update and expansion support to improve global perspective and neutrality, and that is how I contacted you too :). I wish article becomes as inclusive and balanced as possible. So I have already shortlisted at least some sources to represent more geographies and more aspects. But subject is too big and I am alone. Since I began searching and writing from one end and rest still to be written and looking help for the same.

On ease of understanding for general reader, 1) I want to bring second para in lead to first number. 2) Though advice literature is abundant in all medias, reference sources are academic studies and intellectual books; we can add more explanatory lines about anecdotes we are talking about in the article. 3) To avoid copyright my own paraphrasing may have added upon intellectuals writing when more copy editing will take place that will get sorted out.

One more observation is academic focus seems to be more on historic times of advice literature and analysis of modern times and contemporary Islamic advice literature is comparatively lesser and one systemic bias is coming from that side and Wikipedians are dependent on readily available source we can not make much difference to it. Within four corners of freedoms Wikipedia allows from my side I am very much for, to make much inclusive. Besides for quick and better understanding of Islamic terms may be we can add more foot notes in the article.

Also please let me know If I am missing on some thing else not mentioned above.

Tnanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up a few things and added a few tags so other editors can help. Feel free to check out my edits and make sure everything I wrote is correct. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was nice of you for proactive support and healthy discussion. As said earlier I have tried to invite more editors some of them too come and edit and article may not remain as I started but with positive contributions like yours will get improved only. If I feel any thing important I will keep you informed or edit, but as of now I am okay with the changes. You also keep editing whenever you come across any good reference source.

Just for record sake I mentioned this discussion on article talk page.

Thanks again and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe I'll make a few more edits tomorrow – Chrisvacc - ✆ 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the SPI case [1] was closed that the evidence was not strong enough, I am going to assume that you were innocent. With that assumption, I must apologize for having wasted your time and effort, and for causing distress: sorry to you, Chrisvacc. starship.paint (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want my strawberry, and we're cool – Chrisvacc - ✆ 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry, given the length of time passed, I forgot about this, though I shouldn't have. starship.paint (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. it's fine. I had honestly forgotten all about it too. Thanks – Chrisvacc - ✆ 08:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your magnanimity. Best wishes. starship.paint (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to insinuate there's a five-timin', wheelin'-dealin', egg-suckin' dog in your house, Chris, but those strawberries were mine before they were yours, whooo! April 18, 2020, I knew they were going around, I probably would have worn protection. One old dude who dipped his toe in the Battlebowl before I took it to the peak of Space Mountain wasn't even masking his secret identity, completely au naturel. So yeah, you might want to get tested for Dick the Bruiser syndrome, big man. It's not as bad as it sounds, but it is for life. One governor at our party exhibited symptoms 55 years later! Anyway, nice meeting you; the strawberry on the far left likes to be nibbled first, if you're still planning on going through with this, be gentle with Sheila (top right)! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm InedibleHulk. I wished you a safe Ides of May at Starship's page, but it was a bit late, so I understand if our first meeting was too one-sided to count. I'm sorry for my second impression, it was supposed to be Ric Flair before WrestleMania VIII, foolish of me to assume people generally remember pro wrestling's boom years. We don't need to keep talking after this third hello, but at least it's relatively straightforward and polite, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh LOL. Sup? – Chrisvacc - ✆

Oh, you know. Same old thing. Heard you're not a sockpuppet, so we have that in common. I once suspected our mutual business associate here of being a puppetmaster. Turns out he's a ninja! Can't judge a book by its cover, I guess. Do you, uh...read books lately? Actually, hold that thought. I'll disappear completely and ask again in a year, by then we won't be strangers so it won't be a weird question, see? Peace out, Chrisvacc! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool - just didn't recognize you. I readded your comment – Chrisvacc - ✆ 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]