User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive December 2018

Wrong

What a strange request, it´s a fact hes open about being anti homo so defamatory is not the right term. check this link http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Defamation

`Defamation, calumny, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of, depending on the law of the country, an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.` JuicyJaneMe (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@JuicyJaneMe: Defamatory may have been the wrong word, but you cannot call someone a "homophobe" in wikipedia's voice, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:BLP for more info, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You did make a mistake, there was a minor grammatical error in the text.

You did make a mistake, there was a minor grammatical error in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauimauraluv (talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mauimauraluv: I undid your edit because you appear to have mistakenly deleted the whole infobox. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New section

Thanks for noticing that the other day I fixed it already. Makewaluigigreatagain (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, the edits I have made include relevant articles for each page. If you could take a took at the articles, you will see that they add new perspetives/reaffirm certain claims. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesli2018 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesli2018: The issue is that you appear to be adding adding articles by the same author to many different articles, but you shouldn't edit wikipedia for the purpose of promoting certain authors. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi Tornado: you recently added text that identified the religion of Larry Page's mother. Why did you not add text to identify the religion of his father? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.122.30 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add anything about his mother, I did restore content about his grandfather because you had removed it without explanation. I also removed the fact that his father was Christian because you did not cite a source for this fact. Let me know if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Why would someone specifically write "his mother was Jewish" if his father were as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.122.30 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So your assuming his father was Christian because only his mother was mentioned as Jewish? wikipedia editors should not make these kinds of assumptions, see WP:OR and WP:V (in short, you still need a reliable source for anything you add, how do you know his father wasn't Muslim or atheist?) Tornado chaser (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, one shouldn't assume. Carl Victor Page could very well be, as you say, a Muslim...or perhaps an atheist, in which case, your argument goes that one shouldn't write that he is a Christian. Fair enough, Here (https://athefist.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/the-beliefs-of-the-richest-people/), Larry Page is listed as an atheist, so, following your logic, mentioning the religion of one of his parents is irrelevant and worse, misleading as it would lead the reader to assume it relevant to Larry Page, which it seems not to be. If someone wanted to mention this obscure fact, let them put it on a Wikipedia page dedicated to Larry Page's mother.

By the way, where in the source used to cite Larry Page's mother being Jewish does it actually reference that fact? If it isn't present, then there is yet another reason to remove the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.122.30 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

athefist.wordpress.com is someones blog, it is not a reliable source. I don't have the book that is used as the reference for Larry Page's mother being Jewish, do you? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Again here: (https://informationcradle.com/usa/larry-page/) it states that Page does not follow any formal religion, i.e., is an atheist--a safe enough assumption. By the way, the Wikipedia article on Page already mentions that he does not follow any formal religion and thus obviates the need to discuss the religious affiliation or vacation destinations of his family members, distant or otherwise. So, for the reasons already mentioned above, the text is misleading and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.122.30 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

3RR

You acknowledged you were at 3RR, then reverted again. Self revert now please. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Go away

Please do not post on my talk page ever again. Also, do not edit comments by others as you did here. As if it were not blindingly obvious, the judgment of what's a personal attack versus what's a legitimate admin observation on user conduct is not something that can be left to the subject of the comment. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: What does being an admin have to do with this? We have had recent disputes over vaccine issues, so you are WP:INVOLVED and cannot act in an admin capacity on issues related to me and vaccines, so why did you insert yourself into a discussion just to say that I defend antivaxers so maybe I defend nazis too? Even if it was true that I defend antivaxers(which I don't unless adhering to NPOV and BLP on antivax-related articles just as I would on any article counts as defending), antivaxers had absolutely NOTHING to do with the nazi discussion that you inserted yourself into. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you realize what a bad idea it is to edit war to restore personal attacks on ANI?

Of course. Since I did no such thing, it's a pretty irrelevant question. But as long as we're Just Asking Questions: do you realize what a bad idea it is to appoint yourself JzG's personal censor, as you've done more than once?

I will have to report YOU to ANI to make you stop, I CAN make a case that you need to be blocked to stop you from edit-warring to reastore [sic] PAs.

Spare me the empty, clumsy threats and just go right ahead. Start right now. Might just as will get the boomerangs out of the way.

I've looked at your contributions, and if you don't like people saying that you're defending anti-vaxxers and charlatans, your best bet would have been to not defend anti-vaxxers and charlatans. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tornado chaser,

I'm not taking sides on this issue but I don't recommend you bring a case to ANI about personal attacks without stronger evidence. Whether it is right or wrong, judgment could fall on you as a relatively new editor compared to JzG. He has weathered many trips to ANI and survived and I'm less than optimistic about your chances. It's an unpredictable forum for bringing complaints and editors often don't get the results they expect. Just a head's up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:RSN, you may be blocked from editing. Calton | Talk 23:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

About the dude who was banned, who edited the HPPD page

I am not totally familiar with Wikipedia (editing it, etc.) but, this person who is apparently now banned, absolutely ruined the wiki page for HPPD (Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder)- is there any way to recover everything he deleted, etc? As of now, the page is midleading.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunflower162 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sunflower162: Do you have any other user accounts? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Vaccine

I noticed your query. I haven't read the source, so I may misunderstand, but suddenly this wording came to mind: "The tolerance of pro-vaccine parents may encourage anti-vaccine parents to continue in their vaccine denial." Does that help at all? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels

Hi Tornado chaser, Greetings to you. There is a proposal at Village pump(proposal) regarding Reduce number of vandalism warning levels which you might be interested to join the discussion. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternative vaccination schedule

...because your response on the talk page was essentially saying "I disagree"

No, I said, basically, that your self-serving reading of bad intent in that sentence was bogus. Which is is. Don't spin what I said to make yourself look good. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I never said there was "bad intent" in anything, I thought that this sentence was a little POV, but not that anyone wrote it that way intentionally. I also question how well it reflects the source and whether it is UNDUE.

You say my interpretation of this sentence is "self-serving", an accusation which I do not understand. And Don't spin what I said to make yourself look good sounds like an assumption of bad faith, why? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Post-modern globalist liberal-leftist bigotry of "encyclopedia" Wikipedia

Hi, I'm Pooya. Actually and not surprisingly, it seems that "encyclopedia" Wikipedia is only written by narrow-minded and totalitarian ideological post-modern globalist liberal-leftist-minded people. Otherwise, my fair, factual and realistic corrective paragraphs on Global Compact for Migration and many other articles wouldn't have been removed. Talking about having neutral point of view in Wikipedia looks like a joke! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: It looks like you tried to change the article to be written from the point of view that the compact is bad, this is not neutral. If you think there is a specific part of the article that is biased, say so on the talk page so we can come to an agreement on neutral wording. P.S Wikipedia may have a slight liberal bias on average, but there are conservative editors and I am a libertarian, so don't worry about only leftists editing wikipedia(that could be the case with certain articles, but not wikipedia as a whole). Tornado chaser (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is the opposite! It is your "neutral" article and many other articles by Wikipedia moderators that try to glorify and make Global Compact on Migration and generally, all giant tyrannical post-modern globalist open-borders liberal-leftist organizations such as the United Nations and European Union look good and positive! I have already shared my fair, factual and realistic points regarding the very problematic and full of contradictions open-borders and globalist-minded Global Compact on Migration. I've got nothing more to discuss. But, I can share with you some of the decent factual and authentic non-liberal-leftist articles and videos regarding the Compact:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-the-details-are-truly-worrisome#comments

https://www.therebel.media/un-global-compact-migration-ezra-levant-rebel-media-politics?fbclid=IwAR2P9iu81QJBgVtH1gwnkm28F5EMNjlNPnTjByOYteLPzUgFRbOvlhrn1u4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: These are conservative opinion pieces, not neutral articles. It is equally important not to promote right-wing bias as it is not to promote left wing-bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Not at all! These are indeed basic decent, reasonable and easy to understand real articles. It is so sad to see many academic institutions (including "encyclopedia" Wikipedia), media outlets and people in the western countries deeply sank in the current dominant ideological and ignorant post-modern globalist and open-borders liberal-leftist culture that they consider basic common-sense reasons and realities as "conservative"! Rest in peace western civilization! And by the way, you have not mentioned yet any reasons why the real facts and points raised by my corrections and by my shared article and video about the contradictory, ideological and baseless U.N. Global Compact for Migration were not true!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 21:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: There is nothing wrong with being a conservative, but using conservative opinions as sources without editing out the right-leaning bias is not consistent with the 5 pillars of wikipedia(specifically neutral point of view). However, I did justmake a few small changes to the Global Compact for Migration article to correct some slight bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, could you point out specific factual errors in the current article? much of the edits that I reverted were opinion more than factual corrections. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And what is the "shared article and video" you refer to? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: . Tornado chaser (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-the-details-are-truly-worrisome#comments

https://www.therebel.media/un-global-compact-migration-ezra-levant-rebel-media-politics?fbclid=IwAR2P9iu81QJBgVtH1gwnkm28F5EMNjlNPnTjByOYteLPzUgFRbOvlhrn1u4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: Those are both right-wing opinions, like I said, you need to find more neutral sources for wikipedia edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder have you even read carefully and contemplated about the points and concepts in the Global Compact for Migration raised by like I said earlier, very basic and real decent, reasonable and easy to understand articles (and feel free whatever you want to call them: right, left, up, down and etc.!)? If so, please mention your reasons why those REAL FACTS and OBJECTIVE POINTS in my shared article and video about the contradictory, ideological and baseless U.N. Global Compact for Migration were not true. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Any edits that you want to make to wikipedia require reliable sources, something that you have not provided. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: . Tornado chaser (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok! Overall, it seems that our argument is in dead end now. You are working for or a moderator (or whatever) in Wikipedia and you follow the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. it is understandable. But, sadly, the problem is that as I said earlier, I factually believe and consider generally and more or less, the whole current dominant culture and mentality (including the hypocritical "encyclopedia" Wikipedia) in which all of us are in (especially, in the western countries) as post-modern globalist open-borders liberal-leftist. So, the "reliable source" explanation in Wikipedia is a bunch of hypocritical nonsense and misleading paragraphs and text. But, we should always remember that the well before and above the company or organization that all of us are working for, although fallible and humble (rightly so, based on Christian values and truth), we are independent thoughtful and reasonable human beings with formed conscience. Therefore, hopefully, you can read carefully about the articles that I shared and contemplate for yourself about the points and the facts I raised. And then I hope you will understand the real truth about the current tyrannical culture that all of us are in now. God bless!

@Pooyatavakkoli: I am just a volunteer editor like you, I just wish you could see the need to edit in an unbiased manner without assuming that your biases are neutral. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok! If you are just a volunteer editor like me, then it seems that we should come to a basic agreement on this Global Compact for Migration article, based on Wikipedia's own guidelines of factual and evidence-based "neutral point of view" (if it is not just a misleading hypocrisy!). Since, we are just volunteers, I'm not interested in spending much more time and energy (and probably, wasting it knowing the Wikipedia's ultimate post-modern globalist liberal-leftist hypocrisy and many of its editors) on discussing the very detailed information regarding this document. But, generally, at very least, and very factual indeed, based on serious disagreements and arguments on the Compact by many (very decent, reasonable, easy to understand and patriotic aka "conservative") media outlets and institutions in the western countries, by government-elect of some (and growing) countries (such as the United States, Israel, Poland, Hungary and etc.) and by the some coming elected governments (such as Brazil), we should add the word "controversial" to the beginning sentence of the article: "The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is an intergovernmentally negotiated agreement," and also, since, some government-elect of the countries that withdrew and did not vote in favour of the Compact, therefore clearly, they are opposed to it, we should remove the word "agreement" and replace it by "document" throughout the article even if the document itself claims to be an "agreement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No response, argument, reasons and corrections from you and instead, you are trying reporting me to Wikipedia and censoring my totally factual and evidence-based decent edits to the article!? It is obvious that you are incapable of recognizing your biases and should not be editing political articles and it is no surprise that you are okay with the post-modern globalist and open-borders liberal-leftist hypocrisy and bigotry. By the way, I'm not "they"! I'm not a confused gender-neutral person! I am male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooyatavakkoli (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pooyatavakkoli: I never implied that you are a "confused gender-neutral person" I use "they" unless told otherwise because a wikipedia username doesn't tell me if you are male or female, and people might take offense at being called the wrong gender. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)