User talk:Wikieditor19920 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikieditor19920 (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 30 September 2018 (→Paula Stern). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:50, 30 September 2018 by Wikieditor19920 (talk | contribs) (→Paula Stern)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

1, 2, 3

Orphaned non-free image File:David Allan Robertson Portrait.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:David Allan Robertson Portrait.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:David Allan Robertson Portrait.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:David Allan Robertson Portrait.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Keith Ellison. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. Your musings about other editors' motivations are double-inappropriate on an article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr I suggested that WP:ADVOCACY is a possible concern, not far-fetched for an article on a controversial political subject. You should consider reading WP:AOHA before making these types of aggressive posts on other contributor's pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit was a reply to me and mentioned my username specifically. It violated WP:AGF and WP:TPYES, so you were called out on it. Not complicted. You repeated the WP:TPYES violation here with a (bizarre) WP:AOHA reference, so you obviously were in need of the reminder above.

I've never accused you of harassment. Honestly, like 80% of your talkspace edits contain either an untruth or a strawman. VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr If you have specific disagreements with me, you should make your own counter-argument on the relevant talk page. I'm also going to suggest that you take a different approach than the one you're pursuing right now, which could easily be perceived as aggressive and WP:HOUNDING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm flattered that you approve of 20% of my talk page edits. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No, user talk page are the correct location for discussion of behavioral issues. Article talk pages are for discussion of content. False accusations of of harassment (as your clumsy attempt here transparently is) are a serious offense. Where am I "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where you contribute"? provide diffs, please. 20% was an estimate (could be 15%) so don't be so easily flattered. VQuakr (talk)

Enough. Since you're arguing for assuming good faith, you should assume good faith yourself rather than referring to my talkspace contributions as evidence of "behavioral issues," which is essentially an accusation of disruptive editing, which I take exception to. Second, I am not accusing you of harassment at this point but your confronting me on my talk page following a content disagreement is not productive. Why don't we both agree to assume good faith and keep our discussion focused on content and policies; in fact, based on your last post to the talk page for Keith Ellison, it appears we may have even some found some area for agreement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There was no "accusation of disruptive editing". The reason this page exists is to "discuss the edits of a user." Using it for that purpose is not confrontation - it is a normal part of collaborative editing. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Good! I look forward to continued collaboration then. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you? Because this contains another WP:TPG violation and another untruth (the issues with the medical claims were addressed in my first reply in the section). Remember, it is not the job of other editors to WP:SATISFY you that their opinions are correct. VQuakr (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:DISENGAGE from my talk page. I find it rich that you feel the need to lecture me about the "spirit of collobaration" and WP:CIVILITY while simultaneously telling me that "80% of my edits" suck and making baseless claims that I'm lying. There were no "untruths" in the diff you linked above: you did not address the medical records in your first comment and there were no such "violations" on my end; I simply referenced a well-known Misplaced Pages essay on dubious invocations of BLP. And linking WP:SATISFY doesn't give you the right to wholesale revert other editor's contributions while refusing to explain specifically why. That's not collaboration. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Paula Stern

Hello. Does being the chair of the United States International Trade Commission automatically make a subject notable? I was searching for sources, but most of the articles I am finding are primary like interviews or a Goucher spotlight. They can help fill in non-controversial life details but don't contribute to notability. Do you have any additional sources? Thsmi002 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'd say she meets WP:GNG, since she received pretty significant coverage during and after her tenure. Here are some additional articles I found: and here's an interview she gave a few years ago . With subjects like her, who are notable but not so notable that there's a ton of biographical information about her in one place, filling in certain gaps as far as her early life/family may be difficult. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)