User talk:Harold the Sheep

Archives

Archive 1

Discussion on Revert mades to Steven Hassan Wikipedia page

hello sir, First of all thank you for the hard work that you do and the support that you are offering. I also need small help. I updated certain information on steven Hassan's wikipedia page. I see that all the information are reverted. Even his updated Photo which was uploaded is gone. Can you please let me know what i can do add the information that was reverted. Most of the information was his personal information and his details on his thesis and professional memberships. Kindly let me know , if we can quick call and discuss this to be aligned. Thank you once again. Sh fom (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan. Thank you. Sh fom (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Lacan

I'll put it down to excitement this time. But you are hereby warned to restrain yourself and stop the personal attacks. In this edit you claim I'm pushing my personal point of view on the article's text. I find that accusation completely unwarranted and insulting. My sole interest as in every other contribution of mine here is encyclopaedic. Do not presume that because I expanded the Criticism section I'm personally critical of the subject. I suggest you assume good faith on my part as I do on yours and move on. -The Gnome (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. The words of Lacan's widow that her former husband was "hard working" and "very intelligent," aside from being a "tyrant," are irrelevant to the specific issue of that section, i.e. feminist ire & Lacan's alleged brusque character. Yet, you want them up, for reasons I cannot fathom. I'm considering whether this merits a discussion in the Talk page. We'll see. -The Gnome (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary said:

The ostensible attributes of being "intelligent or a "hard worker" are entirely irrelevant to being called a "tyrant"; only her testimony that she has "no reproaches" and he "was worth the trouble" are --the latter with a huge dose of salt, seeing as domestic abuse is very often dismissed by the victim

These are your assertions, and one could certainly have a different interpretation of her words than yours. Sylvia Lacan does not express an opinion on the "ostensible attributes" of her words. She was expressing herself spontaneously, in response to a specific question about her husband. Taking those two words out of their actual context and inserting them into a "feminist ire" section (even implying, in your original edit, that it is connected to Lacan's "sadistic narcissism") appropriates their meaning and intent in a way that is POV-based. This interpretation is not present in the context of the interview, which is the cited source, which means it has been introduced by editors. That's original research. Putting the words back in their context at least allows the 'criticism', if that's what it is, to be whatever she intended it to be, and allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing original research to non existent text. I'm supposed to have engaged in OR by not including what you perceive as "context" and I claim is irrelevant. Her interview contains a large section on Lacan, her second husband. There are numerous references to his person. One could contend that we should include all of them, e.g. the one about Lacan coming to the film set where his actress wife was working and interrupting brusquely the production: Perhaps another facet of his "tyrannical character," or even a piece of information throwing more light to kind of relationship he had with Stephanie. Why not include those as well? I chose to be thrifty.

Why relate in the article his widow's memories at all? Because they are relevant for his work, whence the inclusion under the "Feminist criticism" section, but for his character in general. Lacan was not dispensing equally his verifiably casual cruelty; women were in the receiving end of most of it. (The testimony about patients being literally kicked out by Lacan concerns strictly female ones.)

Onto abuse itself: We have no information about any significant abuse meted out conjugally by Lacan. Working on the basis of the single yet important appellation used by his widow, a "domestic tyrant," throws the subsequent niceties about Lacan out the window: A significant portion of abused women, especially in a marriage, proffer excuses for their abusive husband's behavior, they praise some other qualities he supposedly has, e.g. "he loves our kids," "he provides for us," "he's a brilliant scientist," etc, or they even forgive him! (E.g. "he was worth the trouble," "no reproaches.") These are all irrelevancies, information about matters irrelevant to the fact of domestic tyranny. -The Gnome (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think your inability to comprehend my fairly simple point is a consequence of stupidity, so I'm going to tentatively suggest that it is your anti-Lacan POV—which is palpable in the above rant—that is the cause of it. I'll put it down to excitement this time, but I must ask that you restrain yourself and not come back to my talk page. You are “hereby warned”! Harold the Sheep (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, irony is alright; personal attacks are not. Neither are explicit yet baseless accusations of bias. No more need be said at this point. -The Gnome (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba of Shirdi

Over all it is an improvement to lead. Dont abuse me and my edits. If you have issue mention in talk page, I have improved it by adding secondary sources and views. Stop reverting again and again, I am not going to leave it without citing secondary sources in the lead. All the info you are citing in the lead is already available in my edit also, no info was omitted, instead extra key info is added. Stop this issue here, I am not going to yield on this.Fostera12 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted twice. To call that abusing you is ridiculous. You made a number of substantial changes to the lead that I have doubts about. We can discuss your edits on the talk page, but for the moment, per WP:BRD, leave the old version there. Harold the Sheep (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sai Baba of Shirdi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Fostera12 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the edit on Siegmund Freud

Hello, I leave this question in the User talk as I saw your edit of Siegmund Freud commenting "unnecessary; better reference needed". As far as I know, writing IPAs in the English Wikipedia needs reference about them(don't know whether reference is must or not depending on the topic), so I searched the source which has german pronunciation of 'Siegmund Freud'. To comply with the WP:RS, I used the source uploaded by the 'verified' publisher. Was there a problem that I didn't know inside the reference(like the publisher or the format)? --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think a link to a YouTube video at the top of an article like this is a great look, and not sure if it’s a good reference. But I guess there’s no law against it. Are you familiar with wp:youtube? Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with that;;; Hmm... It's kind of a dilemma about handling International Phonetic Alphabet in the articles... As there are some opinions that IPAs inside the articles should be erased if there is no reference about them though IPAs are somehow meaningful information, so I try to fill in the references about IPAs. But here comes one problem.

Historically famous people like Freud can find their name IPA references inside the on/offline encyclopedias/dictionaries(so sad that I haven't found one), but some people whose names are not inside the encyclopedias/dictionaries(like sports players or politicians) have to rely only on their native language interviews to support the IPAs. But those interviews include newscasts, programs and education channels by their current clubs or their native country broadcasters, so there is a chance that those links can be regarded against the WP:YOUTUBE though not intended.

It's quite a complitating way whether to use these references inside the articles or not..:( --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI: June 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Lewis

On April 23, 2024, I edited James R. Lewis's biography to include the following:

"On multiple occasions in the 1990s, prior to receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Wales, Lampeter, Lewis falsely claimed to have earned a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill." This is factually correct and is highly important in the consideration of this scholar's credibility. I properly cited this, noting that the discussion of this can be found on pp13-14 of this article. This is a direct quote from the article: "For more evidence about Lewis’s false claims to have had a PhD in 1993, compare the back cover of the book he wrote on dreams (Lewis, 1995), which states that he “holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,” with Brill’s 2013 publicity page on a book that he coedited on religion and science, which says that his PhD is from Religious Studies at the University of Wales, Lampeter, in 2003 (http://www.brill.com/handbook/- religion-and-authority-science). He in fact does have a PhD from the University of Wales Lampeter, which raises serious questions about his earlier claims. I confirmed, however, with the current Chair of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Religious Studies Department, that Lewis does not have a PhD from that institution (personal correspondence with R. Styers, August 22, 2016)." BW100eight (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been addressed at the article; in general it's probably better to raise issues like this at the article talk page rather than an editor's talk page. I didn't think the source's assertions justified the statement of fact you added to the article. I don't think the International Journal of Cultic Studies is a good source for this kind of accusation, particularly when no real evidence is provided and there are no other sources. Do you have other sources or evidence? Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoevsky

Greetings. At this point, we are several users who have incorporated the sidebar for conservatism in Russia into the article on Fyodor Dostoevsky in the section that deals explicitly with this topic. According to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." Also, there are many reliable sources that justify his inclusion in the template. Please accept our addition or at least provide a rationale for your reversion and argue for your standpoint. Thank you! Trakking (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sidebar is ugly, intrusive and unnecessary, and smacks of political activism by editors. I guess you could call him conservative in some ways and maybe some sources do, but many don't as well. Depending on context, you could call him many things - liberal, conservative, radical, socialist, humanist, theocratist, secularist, nationalist, universalist, autocratic, libertarian etc. or all or none of the above. At times he lampoons liberals or socialists, but on another occasion he'll do the same thing to conservatives. He was a novelist, a humanitarian, and a man of diverse points of view, someone who felt deeply as much as he thought deeply; not one to identify himself as a conservative intellectual.

If you're worried about bidirectionality my solution would be to take Dostoevsky out of your list of conservative intellectuals. There’s no need to have him there and he doesn't resemble the other guys at all. No doubt you don't want to do that, and if you can get a consensus on the talk page for including the sidebar I'm not going to bother fighting about it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Revert Due To Personal Biases

In Ramzy Baroud, if a link is made to a Ramzy Baroud's claim that someone was killed, then, factually, it is a link to Ramzy Baroud's claim, not to a fact. 109.64.117.76 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]