|
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RedHotPear. |
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
What is the specific rational behind your revert of my edit? JohnGhan11 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)JohnGhan11[reply]
- As I mentioned in the comment, your edit lacked clarity and did not reflect the article body (see MOS:LEAD). For example, the Republican Party has never supported slavery, and there are no verifiable sources in the article that would substantiate that information.
- The idea of an "ideological switch" also lacks specificity. The Democrats and the Republicans have never completely swapped platforms, and it is thus unclear what you are referring to. As part of an article on the Democratic Party, the sentence you edited describes some of the party's earliest stances. The next sentence describes how the party shifted to social liberalism since FDR.
- It is important that the lead reflects the article body and is backed up by reliable resources either in the lead or in the body. Your edit did not meet these standards. I hope this helps you understand why I reverted your edit. Thank you; I look forward to collaborating in the future. RedHotPear (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just between you and me, it really is true that it's hard to say whether the prestige led to the wealth, or the wealth led to the academic excellence, or the history to the prestige, or the excellence to the history, or the history to the wealth ... It's just that our friend's fussing was (as you say) so pedantic. Obviously they're all mutually reinforcing. EEng 18:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC) By the way, have you seen my Glee Club tie?[reply]
- Nice to hear from you EEng! You are one of the first experienced editors I encountered here, and I have greatly appreciated how welcoming you are. Yes, you are right; we are claiming that there is a link between the four listed factors and prestige, and the text may benefit from rewording.
- I have gained more experience since we last interacted! Thank you for helping to make this community so worthwhile :) RedHotPear (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are much too kind. I'd like to discuss something with you offline. Since you don't have Email this user enabled, could you email me? EEng 22:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).
To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find here. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will comment on the talk page when I have more time, but I will just note now that BRD is not mandatory on that article, particularly given that your revert was unexplained. Again, I will point out that it is sourced to a 32-year-old source, and the paragraph centers on "Continental European liberalism," which is not covered in the article body. It is therefore undue and unnecessary in the lead. RedHotPear (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I don´t really go further with the problems in Harvard template, since I start editing it. But I have to revert your edit so there is no "hidden text" as you stated. To be clearer, I compared both views of the template (through printscreens) before and after applying the color changes, and could not find any text affected (by the way, I don´t understand how a simple application of the institutional color on it may cause such controversy)...
Sincerely, I don't see the problems you say it has. That's the reason because I reverted your edition, unless you come up with a specific issue detected from my changes; in that case, I will accept my fault and even I would try to fix it. But believe me, reverting an edit by default is a little harsh. Or at least, I feel like that after spending a while with this template (but more time arguing with other editors, which I regret). - Fma12 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been explained to you repeatedly. There's something the templates you're using do which screws things up on SOME BUT NOT ALL platforms. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not seen by people using other browsers, other operating systems, other settings, other whatever. You have been told by at least three editors that what you're doing is screwing things up, and instead of believing us and either (a) figuring out what's wrong or (b) stopping this stupid campaign to put colors on templates, which is about the least useful thing anyone could do on Wikipedia, you're just carrying on, likely screwing up other templates – templates not on as many editors' watchlists – as well. Now will you smarten up and stop, or do you just want to be blocked? I'm out of patience with you. EEng 00:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Paging David Eppstein. EEng 00:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @EEng: "YOU" are out of patience with me? And what do you think is my opinion about you? In fact, I came here not to discuss with you, with I'm not interesed in at all. Apart of your harshness and bad manners, your statements are wrong and malicious, p.e: 1) "You have been told by at least three editors (WRONG: the ONLY editor I was dealing with, were YOU)"; 2) this "stupid campaign" (according to your words) of putting colors to templates is a common practise here (which I didn't started either) so don't put that blame on me. I have more than 40,000 edits and a good amount of articles created so be sure that I have contributed here with some more than "coloring templates".
- What I'm really tired and sick is to deal with people who doesn't seem to know how to control their agressiveness towards other users. I'm not a newbie here so hold your horses and respect the policies or the only one to be "blocked" could be you. I hope I was clear so keep in mind to talk to me in an appropriate manner. - Fma12 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for saying you were told about these problems by three different editors, because that was incorrect. It was actually four editors (three here [1] – where it was also explained to you that not all problems are visible on all platforms – and one here [2]). That's not counting the various edit summaries. So yes, I'm out of patience with you. EEng 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was definitely seeing the weird spacing after the changes. The only explanation I can think of is that somehow the color-coding interacts badly with the formatting of lists within tables. I don't know why it would do that, but it does. It is not hidden text. It is just big empty blocks of whitespace messing up the formatting of the table. Presumably it's some kind of bug but unless/until it's fixed the template should not be formatted in a way that triggers it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Fma12; thank you for reaching out, and thank you for your work to try to improve the template! From my perspective, your edit caused unacceptable problems for readers, including text that could not be seen without highlighting (what I called "hidden"). And David sees weird spacing, it seems. As others have mentioned, it is likely that the various problems are platform-dependent. It's important that we have a template that displays correctly for all users. RedHotPear (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, @RedHotPear: @David Eppstein:, thanks both of you for your kind replies. I hadn't realise that the changes could be seen different on other browsers, so I will take it into account for future edits knowing that templates can be affected by some changes. Your explanations have been really useful to me. Thanks again. - Fma12 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I linked above, if you didn't realize it that's because you didn't read what was explained to you more than once. Now are you going to stop doing this? And what about all the other templates you've done this too? I might point out that your use of color may violate MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. EEng 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @EEng: 1) I don't have 10 OS installed in my PC (should I?) so I haven't considered the possibility of a bug or incompatiblilty between Chrome/Yandex and other browsers. 2) You never told me that could be the cause of the problem, only a few and short messages on your edit summaries, without specifying me that it could be a cause of conflict with the templates. Otherwise, I would have appreciated a lot any help to solve the issue. 3) No other editor told me about an incompatibility problem on other templates (and I not only edited but also created many of them) so it is the first time I deal with such problem.
- Regarding to your last sentence, of course I will continue to add color or whatever be needed (speaking of constructive and good faith edits) in order to improve a template, as I have been doing up to now. Moreover, I don't think that a change of background color (referring exlusively to the header section), using the same paramethers –with the appropriate synthax than other templates may constitute a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. At least I should install two or three browsers else in my computer to verify this. As I said you above, it is the first time that other editors report me a problem like that. Moreover, if any other user let me know about similar compatibility issues in other templates, I'll be collaborative to solve it, as I usually do. I'm done with this I guess, but you can let me your feedback on my talk page about any future case. - Fma12 (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you plan to keep doing what you're doing even though you now know that the templates you're using cause problems which you can't see when previewing your edits. Here's what you should be doing: stop making these changes until you find someone who understands what's wrong with the template(s) and fixes it. I'm doing you the favor of pinging Frietjes, who wrote Template:CollegePrimaryStyle and who can get context from this [3] and this [4]. Hopefully he/she can help you. EEng 23:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- the key is that you should only apply font coloring to the groups and title. if you apply it to the list entries, it's going to be bad. I have been toying around with the idea of having automatic link coloring for navbox, but that might cause problems in terms of Help:Link color. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with RedHotPear's "scrubbing" of the Kamala Harris Wikipedia article to remove all discussion of the Larry Wallace scandal. RedHotPear made this biased edit here: 22:07, 21 September 2020 RedHotPear talk contribs 214,682 bytes -564 →2017: per talk page thread
This is the text that RedHotPear entirely "scrubbed" from the Kamala Harris Wikipedia page:
Twelve months later, longtime aide Larry Wallace resigned from Harris's Senate staff after The Sacramento Bee uncovered a $400,000 settlement paid by the State of California for Wallace's sexual harassment of his executive assistant while both worked in Harris's Attorney General office.[243] Alexei Koseff, "Kamala Harris aide resigns after harassment, retaliation settlement surfaces", Sacramento Bee, December 5, 2018.
One year after Sen. Harris issued this unconditional statement "Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere" to call for Sen. Al Franken's resignation, the "Sacramento Bee" exposed a sexual harassment scandal that occurred in Harris' own California Attorney General office involving her longtime advisor Larry Wallace, who followed Sen. Harris to a senior position on her U.S. Senate staff. The State of California paid $400,000 to the female victim of Larry Wallace's sexual harassment. RedHotPear was wrong to delete all discussion about this sexual harassment scandal from the Kamala Harris Wikipedia page.
RedHotBear claims on the Kamala Harris talk page: " dubiously notable enough for inclusion anyway. I went ahead and removed the second sentence."
Excuse me? A "Sacramento Bee" expose that was reported on throughout the state was "dubiously notable enough for inclusion anyway"? Harris' own senior advisor's sexual harassment of a female subordinate in her OWN office is "dubiously notable" AFTER she issued such a strong statement against Sen. Al Franken: "Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere"? That's an extremely poor justification for entirely removing content from a Wikipedia article. Jab73 (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to (a) make your argument at Talk:Kamala Harris, not here; (b) be more brief because no one's going to read a rambling wall of text like that. EEng 12:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RedHotBear here. I responded on the talk page. RedHotPear (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I saw that you reverted two edits I had made to the Harvard College page and I was wondering if there was something I had done incorrectly when making either of those edits? I look forward to hearing your insight on this.
Thanks,
Redf1veXW (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to meet you Redf1veXW. Sorry about the delayed response! No, you did not do anything egregious; just note that Wikipedia uses the logical quotation style (this is different from standard American practice). As for the sentence in the lead, "Notable alumni" is a major section in the article, and per MOS:LEAD, there should be at least one sentence in the lead that addresses this section. I personally feel that what currently exists is fine, but I would be happy to work together to improve it as well. RedHotPear (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this makes much more sense. I'll look further into the logical quotations and the manual of style for how a lead should be formatted. I appreciate this!
Redf1veXW (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RedHotPear, I noticed that you edited a few state Democratic party pages to include the ideology of "centrism" or "center" in their respective infoboxes. I am wondering why you would include these on these pages. Several scholars and political scientists would not agree that one of the two major US parties are centrist-oriented. Just hoping for some clarification, thanks. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course PerpetuityGrat; thank you for reaching out. Modern/social liberalism is the best-sourced ideology for the party, considered by most political scientists to be centrist or center-left. In more typical reliable sources that are news instead of academic, the party is typically described as having centrist and progressive factions, with a smaller conservative faction whose influence tends to be stronger in more rural and Republican-leaning states and regions. RedHotPear (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
