User talk:Butlerblog - Wikipedia

2 people in discussion

Article Images

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

I've noticed that you have left messages on my talk page about "unconstructive" and "disruptive" edits. I have failed to see what about such edits are disruptive and/or unconstructive, as I just added links to the Chicago, Illinois, and United States pages. How is that disruptive? BorneoIsland (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BorneoIsland: If you fail to see what is disruptive, then either you haven't read manual of style link I pointed out to you or you don't understand it. Please read MOS:GEOLINK to understand how you should be handling links to geographic locations.

You are putting in links to geographic locations like this: [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]], [[United States]].

That is overlinking. Our manual of style asks you to do it this way: [[Chicago, Illinois]], United States.

You've indicated on your user page that you are a wikignome. If you want others to consider you to actually be gnomish, then you need to follow the manual of style.

We want you to edit (and to enjoy participating in the community), but you need to also follow established guidelines. If you edit in a way that isn't within the MOS, you're given the benefit of the doubt initially (WP:AGF). But after a few reversions and having been notified of what needs to change, if you continue to ignore that, then it's disruptive. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not trying to canvass but you should probably know that I filed an AN/I case regarding the IP you have (justifiably) been reverting so much in the last few days. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Biohistorian15 Thanks for the heads up. Hope you see some success in getting some resolution, but the IP range is vast and it has been going on so long, I'm pretty much numb to it at this point. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that "Category:Neo-fascism" and "Category:Christian fascists" got removed from "Category:Christian identity", even though there's more than enough evidence to show that Christian Identity has many political tenets with fascism and nazism (to say nothing of its adherents being fascists like Neo-Nazis themselves).Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Being a decentralized religious belief with no specific set orthodoxy, it's difficult to apply the category to it as a whole. While there are some obvious groups that would apply (Aryan Nations comes to mind), not every group is actually political in nature, and there is much cross-over with other groups that are more sovereign citizen/antigovernment/militia, but not necessarily "religious" (Posse Commitatus for example). There are elements of neo-fascism in CI in general (racism, nativism, etc), but actually being neo-fascist is something different and does not apply to all (for example Shepherd's Chapel). For categorization, it's better to categorize articles that are actually neo-fascist or neo-Nazi at the article level; but the entire CI category doesn't belong as a sub-category of neo-fascism. When you're categorizing a category, the parent category needs to apply to all entries into the child category, which it does not in this case. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"There are a lot of leads like that, and just as many editors who, unfortunately, feel that it somehow proves a point to stick every label they can "prove" into the opening sentence. It degrades readability and is poor writing style. In this case, all of those labels are presuppositional to the label "neo-Nazi". But if you remove them, a bevy of editors will shout "These are well sourced" regardless of the pedantic writing style."

Encyclopedias do not intentionally have degraded readability, or an intentionally poor writing style, and ultimately it is POV pushing and censorship, by forcing the Reader into a particular "track", which then excludes from their potential list of unlimited options, other tracks that their free-thinking mind may want to travel. Intelligent people instinctively notice this, and rebel against it, and so the "encyclopedic Article" becomes an obstacle to learning and new awareness, instead of facilitating it.

66.25.69.185 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding your opinion. I think we're on the same page. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply