User talk:Diana056

[[ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cris Cyborg. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: My edit history shows I only reverted the Cris Cyborg article twice in a 24-hour window. Other edits I made to the article in that time were unrelated to this issue and were not reverts. As such, I did not think this constitutes for an edit war. However, I will stop editing the article now regarding this issue. Thank you for your message. Diana056 (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 types of edit warrings. one is 3rr and the other is just edit warring which means it revert back to the same content which it does not fall under 24 hrs time frame (days) as long as editors involved keep doing without which discussion/ change the info during discussion or after discussion close. In short, edit warring usually is about content dispute, when incident as such, editors are encourage to get to resolution by discussing the matter in the article talk page for such communication and working together is the key. A request for comment can be done by inviting a more experienced editor who know about the subject to get the favorable result based on Wikipedia guidelines (There are many many guidelines and it takes years to know some of them). If the discussion can be solved then the discussion can be closed if not then an in uninvolved editor would close the discussion. I need to place warning to both of you to be fair/just as per guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: Thank you for explaining. I left a message on the editor's talkpage after each of the reverts, so thought it was ok to do so. I will try to avoid this in the future. Diana056 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain my position one more time:

When you write "some claim XY is saying racist things" (or similar variations like "Is XY a racist?" or "XY is allegedly a racist") - then that's basically the same as writing "XY is probably is racist", because the average reader will understand it that way. We know this trick of insinuating things without outright saying them from the tabloids.

Therefore, you have to be extra responsible and have very good reasons for including something like that. A good start would be: Several "respectable" journalists, bloggers etc. that make that claim, are willing to put their name to it, provide evidence and make their point...

What we have instead is: Some random guys saying writing stuff on twitter, and some clickbait articles reporting that some random guys wrote stuff on twitter. That is not enough.

(Frankly, I think the whole section is way too long and should be condensed to maybe a short sentence and a link to the interview... but I generally try to avoid removing other people's edits, so removing only the passage in question is already a compromise...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.86.25 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @178.10.86.25:, thank you for reaching out. First of all, the statement "Namajunas' was accused of racism/xenophobia" was reported by several reputable sources which fulfill Wikipedia's standards of an independent and reliable source. As Wikipedia editors, it's not our job to analyze what sources the journalists and authors of those articles used to make that claim, it's only our responsibility to judge whether it is an acceptable source according to Wikipedia rules for verifiability, which all of those used in Rose's article are. Wikpedia should primarily adhere to what the (reliable and independent) sources say, and if numerous such sources say that Rose was accused of racism, then that's what her Wiki article should state as well. This is where all discussion about this could end without a single question - it's a statement supported and verified by numerous reliable sources, so no matter what way you look at it there's no reason for the statement to be removed due to verifiability concerns.

Secondly, if you looked at the accounts of some of the tweets quoted in those articles, among them are also those "respectable" journalists you mention - such as Elias Cepeda, a Fox Sports journalist, or Chisanga Malata, a journalist writing for The Sun. So we can consider your concern about not enough known names speaking about it as solved.

Thirdly, even if there were no journalists and bloggers talking about it on their Twitter accounts, a large number of regular people making the accusation is also significant. The statement in the article specifically says "accused by some". The opinions of general public, and reactions of general public to behavior by a public figure is 100% important enough to include in an article.

Lastly, I would like to object to your sentence saying "you have to have very good reasons to include something like that". The only requirement for including something like that in anyone's article, just like any info on Wiki, is to back it up with reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and if the person is involved in a controversy, the negative parts/reactions should be included just equally as the positive. Immediately after that statement is included Rose's reaction amd defense to that. Equal space was given to both sides. Please try asking yourself if you are really operating from a NPOV, or if you just don't want to see negative things written about someone you are a fan of.

To summarize - the statement is verified and supported by multiple reliable and independent sources, there's no reason to remove it for concerns over not being verified enough. Diana056 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the wikipedia guidelines: [[1]]

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

especially section 2.4: [[2]] note the explicit mention of weasel words

The concern is not whether the claims are "verified enough". The concern is whether they are relevant enough. Of course the statement "some people say..." is factually true - but it's true for just about anything.

The opinions of general public, and reactions of general public to behavior by a public figure is 100% important enough to include in an article.

The guidelines clearly contradict that. And, clearly, we are not talking about opinions of the "general public" here, we are talking about the very fringe and extreme opinion of "some people".

Maybe here's compromise: Change the passage to something along the lines of "N.'s statements were seen as inappropriate by many. " It's more accurate, since Namajunas' comments were widely criticized, but usually for the reason that people felt it was unfair to drag Zhang into this. I still think this is basically just gossip - but without the "racism/xenophobia" claim, I can live with it.

@178.10.86.25: Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The accusations of xenophobia and racism were reported by multiple credible third-party sources, which does make them notable. Saying she was accused of racism for public statements she made to media is not violating her privacy. That primarily refers to things such as, for example, full names of subject's children or relatives which are not widely reported by reliable sources and are not relevant to the article. This info is also not gossip by virtue of being easily verifiable as an actual fact reported by numerous sources, which are not tabloids but reputable sources adhering to Wiki's standards. The problem I have with the compromise you proposed is that racism and xenophobia is what was specifically reported. I don't see a valid reason to try to obsfucate that and omit those words. I agree, however, that the sentemce should be reworded not to include weasel words ("by some"). I suggest we bring this dispute to the article's talk page and if we can't come to a conclusion after a week, I'll ask an uninvolved editor to decide. Let me know if you agree. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, like you see on my posts. Diana056 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still vehemently disagree. This would open the door to put any kind of unproven malicious allegations into any person's bio. You will always find some people on reddit, twitter or wherever that make the most absurd claims. And you'll always find some clickbait articles that pick up on that. Imagine what would happen if you apply these standards to some celebrity page...

I still dispute the quality of the sources: https://meaww.com/ - is obviously a tabloid https://middleeasy.com/mma-news/ - "The best place for MMA News & Rumors...", per their own description

As per your previous comment about "serious" journalists making the allegation: Elias Cepeda does not work for FOX any more since 2016. (I actually think looking at his twitter very much does make my point... ) I did not find anything of Chisanga Malata accusing Namajunas or racism. Here's his tweet on the original interview: https://twitter.com/Chisanga_Malata/status/1381263146892062721

Yes, if there are other options to try to resolve this, I would welcome it.178.10.86.25 (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@178.10.86.25: I stared a new section at the article's talk page, so let's continue the discussion there. If we can't come to a consensus after the standard time of one week, and no other editors join, I will ask someone uninvolved to close it and resolve the dispute. Diana056 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucie Pudilová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellator. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you don't seem to format your references, if you didn't know there are tools like https://citer.toolforge.org/ you can use to easily format your references automatically. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I use a similar tool for my language's wikipedia but didn't know there are also ones for English wiki, so this is really helpful. I'll try to remember to format my references in the future. Diana056 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]