User talk:ItsPugle/Archive 1

Australian Government logo

Hi, Wikipedia's rules around the use of non-free images are very conservative. They basically boil down to images being OK to use only when it's necessary to adequately illustrate the article and no free alternative exists. I don't see how the generic Australian Government logo is necessary in the article on the PM - the logo appears on a vast range of things, and has no specific association with the role. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I see that we're leaving messages on each other's pages! Do you mind if we continue this conversation on your talk page, as I feel like I've just addressed this? Would you also mind hanging on a while before you revert my edits. I'd prefer it if you'd give me some time to add rationales and explain them before you go through and remove them and the image from the article :) ItsPugle (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting expansion and update edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel your focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

This has been posted on your talk page since, one of article review suggested to have more diverse editor participation to have more inclusive, neutral and balanced worldview

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Secular.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

no need

There are conventions of where most times Australian items are provided with states, regardless if they are linked or not, by established usage in Australia, the big problem if you personally dont like it - it either (1) establishes the precedent for the whole Australian project (b) requires you to understand the general practices. Either way the issue of how places are described requires consistency, and you would better off to the AWNB and suggest the change. Many non australian social media and web based information systems enjoy x, australia in many cases failing to show any cognisance of more than one location of same name. Take care. JarrahTree 02:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey JarrahTree! As far as I've ever learnt and have ever been exposed, it's English convention to not include the state for capital cities. This is backed up by most writing systems, including the APA style (Indian River State College Library and the official APA Style blog) which is arguably the most prominent and endorsed style. A conversation on the English Stack Exchange also concludes that when writing, it's widespread practice to omit the state. Ultimately, the existing consensus not just on Wikipedia, but across the English language, is that you don't include states. Does this address your concerns? :) ItsPugle (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, (so not particularly...) style guides are irrelevent... it is what WP:MOS determines as to how things work... but clearly no big deal. Your answer shows no appreciation for WP:MOS - take care - I will revert if I ever see Perth, Australia - it so happens there are more than one Perth... JarrahTree 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:MOS has no specific determination on this, nor does WP:NC. You cannot in good faith say that because I refer to global, well-recognised, well-respected, and well-used, style guides for elements where MOS falls short, I therefore have no respect for MOS. When referring to Perth, for example, Perth, Australia would be correct as per the APA and Harvard guides. If you're referring to another Perth in Australia, then it would be different. You only use <city>, <country> for capital cities or cities that are significant enough to be recognisable globally (i.e. Gold Coast, Australia). ItsPugle (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

On WP:LEADCITE

Do stop invoking WP:LEADCITE to unilaterally remove citations from the lead. WP:LEADCITE very clearly states, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

LGBT articles are usually controversial articles. And these leads have often been discussed among editors on the article talk pages and have WP:Consensus. If you don't want citations in the lead of a specific article, propose the matter on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am going a bit overboard with WP:LEADCITE. But hey, that's why we have WP:BOLD. In my defence though, most of the exact statements that I'm removing citations for are relatively mundane and aren't controversial (or if so, purely categorically), and there doesn't really look to be an established and documented consensus on any of the article talk pages ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ FYI, I am going to re-edit a few articles since a few of the reverts also caught some changes unrelated to the revert message ItsPugle (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biosafety level, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COVID-19 pandemic in China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Etc.

Hi. I responded to three parts within the section you started for Welfare. I became aware of some of posts there after adding my own inquiry. I hope I was able to add some insight into some of your concerns and inquiries. I believe you are from Australia. I can see where there can be confusion, especially with 'social security' and 'unemployment insurance' because of how those programs (words) operate within Australia. I hope I am successful in explaining the American-Social Security connection (seeing that the term originated there and is the formal name to numerous programs and functions). An important term to know about is "social insurance" as a contrast to "welfare". I'm still new here on Quora and imperfect with communication back/forth. Roxanne-snowden (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for your reply and your comment on the talk page. Although I understand your point and in the United States they may not always be interchangable to a technical audience, we're really trying to ensure that the article reflects a global and non-biased representation, and one where you don't need to know anything about the topic to find out what you need. You seem really in-the-loop with the US' welfare systems though, so you might find the Social Security (United States) article a good place for you to contribute all your knowledge! And no need to worry about the conventions of communication on Wikipedia - we're pretty relaxed as long as you indent your message and sign it. You don't really need to worry about bolding or referencing hugely in messages either, since everyone can see previous messages, and most of the time read them. Only thing I will say is that once a consensus has been reached, as it was with Welfare, it's generally not best practice to respond or edit that discussion/section. If you think there's a really pressing or significant change that needs to be made that needs discussion, we generally wait three or four months before we nominate anything - it helps give the article and editors space to breath and develop on its own :) ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 05:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

1967 referendum

Your edit to 1967 Australian referendum is not correct regarding the second question. You changed "had two parts" to "sought two amendments" this in correct. Section 51 was amended and section 127 was repealed. You removed "in states" in regards to section 51 and in the edit summary commented that "the amendment allowed the A.G. to make laws for Indigenous Australians across the entire nation". That is not correct. The proposed amendment was removing "other than the aboriginal race in any State" from section 51. The Commonwealth already power to make laws in territories. You changed "constitutional population calculations" to "population calculations" in regards to section 127. The Commonwealth already had the power to count all Indigenous Australians in population calculations. It did not have the power to count all Indigenous Australians for constitutional population calculations such as section 24 due to the exclusion in section 127. You have likewise edited 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals).--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Melbguy05! The Australian Government has the authority to override Territory legislation on matters that it otherwise wouldn't be able to for States, and this Constitution Amendment just meant the Federal Government could take over legislation for Indigenous matters from the States too. If you wanted to directly quote "in states" as part of a larger quote, I'm all good then for that to be there, but having it there just is a bit excessive - it's pretty logical that the end result is that the Federal Government can make laws for the entire nation regarding Indigenous matters, whereas having "in states" could suggest to those not aware of the Territory rule that Territories aren't affected. And in terms of the "constitutional population calculations", it again seemed a bit needless to include "constitutional" to describe the effects of a Constitutional Amendment that has already been established as such; a possible wording instead could be "voting population" or "population eligible to vote"? ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In regards to section 51, in the body in section 'Amendments to the Constitution' it states that the Commonwealth had the power for territories so readers will be aware of this. In regards to section 127, there were already 'population calculations' of all Indigenous Australians although in separate tables (1961 census). All Indigenous Australians had the power to vote. 'Constitutional population calculations' or overall figures for the national and for states and territories did not include all Indigenous Australians.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Australian federal parliament can override Territory legislation, but territories still make their own laws on matters like the States - the end outcome, without regard for the technicality of what changes, was that the federal government can make laws for Indigenous Australians anywhere in Australia, in States and Territories alike. And with the Census, how about we use Census of Population and Housing ("the census") since that's what Indigenous Australians are counted in post-referendum? Even though may have been counted in statistical collections, they weren't included in the actual census or population count (the referendum appealed this limit - previously, the Constitution read "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, ... aboriginal natives shall not be counted"). ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 00:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|ItsPugle}}, They weren't counted for the purposes of states like WA and QLD using their substantial Aboriginal populations to get extra Federal funds or electorates. The "statistics" power enabled the Commonwealth to collect data on Aboriginal Australians. Please take care not to fall for myths propagated about the referendum. (the bullshit about the "Flora and Fauna Act" can die too). PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@PAustin4thApril1980 and Melbguy05: Thanks for your concern, but I'm not exactly "falling for myths" about the referendum - despite the referendum's importance, it's not exactly a conversation for the dinner table hahaha! Yeah, I understand that Indigenous Australians weren't counted in the electoral population to prevent states like Queensland with larger populations from getting 'additional' representation. How about ... in determining the constitutional population if you'd prefer not to refer to the Census of Population and Housing? I'd primarily like to avoid using three words to describe a basic concept. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}} on reply) 01:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Section 51 had nothing to do with 'overriding Territory legislation' and that source the Parliamentary Education Office did not state that. The Commonwealth already the power to make laws in Territories - Commonwealth laws. I cited the ballot paper in my wording which stated "the Commonwealth Parliament has no power, except in the Territories, to make laws with respect to people of the Aboriginal race..". Sawer commented in relation to making the Commonwealth responsible for all States that it was "already responsible for the largest single group - in the Northern Territory". As to section 127, they were included in the actual census as I have already stated as was in my sources. The 1961 Census included half-castes in the official figures but excluded full-blood which were in a separate table. I'm not sure of the best wording to summarise s. 127 in a few words. In 1967, the section was applicable to section 24 for the House of Representatives electorates calculation (decades earlier for sections 89, 93 and 105 calculations) with the information obtained for the calculation from the Census. Arcioni uses "constitutional calculations" to describe the section while another source that I didn't cite Taylor uses "population counts for constitutional purposes." Using Taylor's wording the introduction could be "whether in population counts for constitutional purposes to include all Indigenous Australians".--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angus Taylor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS stuff

Howdy. As anyone (who knows me) can tell you, I'm against the usage/over-usage of diacritics on English Wikipedia. But, we both have to accept that there's nothing we can do to stop it. A large enough number of editors (for various reasons) want to use them. It sucks, but if we fight against it? odds are, we end up getting topic-banned, blocked or banned. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Hey! Yeah, it's a tad annoying to me that diacritics are being used when the majority of sources don't use them and arguments like "it could be offensive" are thrown around, and when I'm accused of having a vendetta against just Vietnamese articles. Like, I'm perfectly fine for there to be diacritics if there's an article where the majority of sources use them, but the entire premise of Wikipedia is based on emulating reliable sources, so to selectively use diacritics when all the evidence and policy suggests otherwise... it's annoying. But honestly, the whole thing of being topic banned etc or me being a sock puppet of Kauffner is kind of crazy to me since that all happened 10 years ago - some people need to let go of the past. Anyways, what can you do about it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply to your message about reference removal

Hello, I am an inexperienced Wikipedia editor and I realized that in the process of trying to edit the code to add a reference, I messed the whole article up, so I reverted my own edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.16.168 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay - Thank you for your speedy reply. Because you've added some valuable information, I've added it back, but I'll be changing the internal text (wikiText) to resolve any issues. Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) at 04:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Finally managed to fix citation issue for the article.

Thank you very much sir for your time and effort in checking on the article and intervening. I have managed to fix the citation issue.

Awesome! I know that you might not want to, but I highly suggest that you register for an account. I've left some more information for you on your talk page :) Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) at 05:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Insufficient Discussion to move Exclusive economic Zone of Australia page

Hi, there has been insufficient discussion to move the [[1]] Exclusive economic zone of Australia page to Exclusive Economic Zone. Australia deserves its own page, because there is more space for additional information there. The original page had more information too. The page Exclusive Economic Zone should only have small paragraphs and maybe a map. [discussion] only included a few people: ItsPugle and I-82-I. An earlier request to move on [January 2020] was declined and that should be respected. Exclusive Economic Zones are officially recognized internationally and by the United Nations. - Artanisen (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Artanisen: Hey! The discussion was open for 14 days, double what the generally accepted discussion period is, so if you'd like to merge it out, you'll need to start a discussion to do that on the EEZ talk page. The 'argument' that an entire page should exist "because there is more space for additional information there" is also a bit flawed: we don't need an entire article about Australia's EEZ. Very few other countries have entire articles about their EEZs, and when they do, it's because there's a lot more to write about than Australia. Also, the EEZ article also only has two small paragraphs because that's all there is to say about it. It's also worth noting this wasn't a move discussion, it was a merge discussion - Exclusive economic zone of Australia was merged into its master article, Exclusive economic zone, because it lacked any reason to stay as a separate article. No one here wants to move any articles to Maritime claim of x, which is what is discussed in that move for the Portugal article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people don't notice it in 14 days when they have other real life errands. Many countries do have articles about EEZ such as Exclusive economic zone of India, EEZ of India has much more information than the Exclusive economic zone page, so this is why a separate page is more useful. The argument "that's all there is to say about it" is rebuted by my example EEZ of India page. It's also ignorant to assume that all there is to say is 2 paragraphs about large areas of lakes and oceans. Lakes and ocean have a wealth of information ranging from microorganisms, natural resources, types of marine life etc. Again people can and often will add more information overtime that make it larger than 2 paragraphs. There was too little discussion to speak of for a merge, it was done by a few people with little notice. Therefore the merge should be undone. - Artanisen (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Artanisen: My user talk page is not the right place to be holding this discussion. If you would like to revert the merge, start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to gain a new consensus. Before you go on about 14 days not being enough time, the merging policy explicitly says, Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed.... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I also posted on the talk page. It is difficult to start a discussion, because the merged page is inaccessible, except by using this link with "&redirect=no" [[2]]. Again = An earlier request to move on [January 2020] was declined and that should be respected. - Artanisen (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Artanisen: That is not the right talk page for it. Since you're seeking to split out a section into its own article, you'll need to put the request here. Also, again, that discussion from 17 January 2020 is irrelevant - we're talking about a merge from one side article into the main article, not a move. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, how many (or how few) people were involved in that shortsighted decision to merge it? I seek to reverse this merger. You want me to repeat the whole process again. - Artanisen (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Artanisen: Please, just start the discussion. Yes, you do need to "repeat the whole process again" because you're seeking to change something that there was already an accepted consensus for. You're the only person to seemingly have an issue with the change, and moreover, the merge happened a months ago. WP policy already supports that the discussion was valid as well. God, I'll even start the discussion on your behalf if you can't. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I can start the discussion. I also asked how many people were involved in this decision? The pages about each country's EEZ help to raise awareness that those places are not just water, there is a whole world underneath the surface of the ocean. By raising awareness about the oceans people will care more to protect it. To remove such pages makes people more ignorant about the seas around the lands they live. So it is disappointing to see people treat EEZ as just borders on a map. There is much to tell about the marine life, organisms and resources. The EEZ of Australia page had more information than on the EEZ page. - Artanisen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

An EEZ is not about the biology and marine sciences of an ocean, it's about a polity's claim to sovereign control of maritime area... Anyways, just create the discussion and we can continue on there. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Witte de With

Hi - I appreciate you caring much about Wikipedia protocol - but the reversion of the work I did to actually make a legitimate update on an institution that decided to rename itself because of the RACISM of its namesake is... just.... I don't know... I am enraged. If you revert the page to its racist original, you should at least have the courtesy to make the proper suggested move yourself instead of just wreaking havoc like that.

Queenofprussia (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Queenofprussia: Please be a bit more respectful considering that you made a significant and controversial (both on and off-wiki) move without discussion to an article name that no one will recognise and is against policy. WdW is still broadly called the Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art (Tripadvisor, the Official Rotterdam website, LonelyPlantet), so until such time that they officially announce a new name, let's just wait - we don't rename articles to "Formerly known as ..." for organisations going through a name change. Also, it might be worth noting that I added a significant portion to the lead detailing the name change, explicitly saying the name change was to separate [the Centre] from the Dutch colonial officer, Witte de With, it was named after to recognise the negative impacts of colonialization. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Thanks. I did not make the "Formerly Known As" up, as you suggest I did. Not only did they in fact register a domain fkawdw.nl, under which they can be reached, but if I google Witte de With, the first hit is an Ad with the headline "FKA Witte de With", and going on: "Formerly known as Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art is a public institution in the field of contemporary art and its related discourses." So, no, I did not invent a name. They chose to be referred to as "FKA Witte de With" for the time of their "namelessness". While that may be a somewhat unusual name, it is still a name. And to be reverting it the original, which the institution obviously has decided to no longer use seems wrong. Queenofprussia (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Queenofprussia: They're still listed as WdW on most secondary sources, so we still follow that. Anyways, if I google Witte de With it comes up with our article on the colonial officer so... If you can find maybe two of three sources that explicitly say "Witte de WIth now goes by Formerly known as Witte de With", go for it, but it just seems just a descriptor in front of the name until they decide on one, rather than actually a new name. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: You are repeating yourself without adding much substance to your argument. Since it is the institution itself that has decided to forego its old name, I absolutely do not see why other 'sources' - such as commercial travel websites that would quite obviously take longer to react to such a change, given the sheer amount of information they oversee - would need to be consulted. For me, as a historian, the primary agent in this debate is the institution itself. That is the chief source we need to take into account - all others are merely secondary and do not reflect as immediately the relevant information, especially when we deal with commercial websites, which should not be considered reliable sources for an encyclopaedia in the first place. Wikipedia does not exist to reflect the interests of tourists or the travel industry. Additionally, the fact that "Formerly known as" 'just seems a descriptor in front of a name' to you is irrelevant. This isn't the place for your subjective interpretations of someone else's decision to give themselves a new name, however interim it may be. Your subjective opinion should not be a factor in the decision making process. What is relevant here and what should absolutely be a factor is that the museum has decided to drop its old name. "Witte de With" simply is no longer their name. If you insist on calling it that way, then you are clearly not acting in the interest of keeping knowledge up to date. Queenofprussia (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Queenofprussia: A new requested move has been launched on the actual talk page, which is what you needed to have actually done rather than moving something blatantly controversial. Also, I'm not exactly sure what you're on about Wikipedia "not exist[ing] to reflect the interests of... the travel industry"? Of course it isn't, but we use sources for literally everything, so if every source says one thing then.... Is your entire thing about the name being racist not subjective though too? I mean, the art centre itself surely seems not to have any racist tendencies and the name in itself does not discriminate against a certain race so... And if you think I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, maybe you need to have a quick read of the actual policy you broke. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Issues with Drew Pavlou's wikipedia

Hi,

You seem to be making a few errors in regards to Drew Pavlou's wikipedia page.

I haven't had a comprehensive look at all your edits, but for example after originally being suspended for one year, he is now subject to only a 6 month suspension as it was reduced in UQ's court proceedings.

Additionally, Olivia Brumm never denied that the pen incident was in the case. I'm not sure what led you to believe this but I'd be more than happy to get her to make a statement of her confirming it is in the case.

I understand you are trying to balance Drew's claims, but you are forgoing accuracy in this attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.55.10 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Sorry, I keep misreading sources in my mad dash to try and get the article more neutral. You're right, it was one semester and somehow the pen story did actually get in the report (wth!?). Thanks for pointing it out. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

I noticed that you contributed to the George IV requested move discussion. Just FYI, there is a very similar requested move discussion on George III if you wish to contribute. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: Thanks! Just want you to be safe, so if you haven't already, make sure to ping others in the convo so you don't look like you're canvassing :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I messaged everyone that had participated in one discussion but not the other, regardless of which side of the debate they were on. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: Perfect would hate for you to get blocked or something like that (not that I think you'd canvas anyways hahaha) :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bank Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits at Drew Pavlou

Hi. I'd like to ask why you've added a four-letter-expletive starting with the letter "C" not found in the supporting source to this article. (see diff here) FOARP (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@FOARP: Don't worry, you can say cunt on Wikipedia since we're working in an academic environment (would be a bit different if you were calling someone that though). If you have a look at the actual source, you can see that the ABC story says "Some of the allegations include... using the 'c-word' to describe business and finance students, alleging they had no views beyond those of their wealthy parents." ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if the source says "C-word", this does not say what you are editing the article to say. Let's rely on the sources, particularly for BLP. FOARP (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How exactly do you mean? BLP doesn't mean that we WP:CENSOR statements against or by Pavlou; in fact, excluding statements that he's made because they're uncomfortable is quite a horrendous NPOV violation. Anyways, it's not exactly like he's been denying the statements.Obviously we can't use that source in the article for the fact that it's not verifiable, but for our purposes, there's no disagreement about if he said what he said. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't censorship, the source does not actually support the phrase you are quoting him as saying. You are instead paraphrasing what the article says and providing it as a quote. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that de-censoring "c-word" to "cunt" is a violation of V and BLP? Despite how that's a bit absurd, if you wanted to actually discuss the factuality, Drew's post literally explicitly says "cunt". Beyond that, ABC has a tendency (likely an editorial policy) to censor profanity: f***, c-word, f***/f****** when quoting. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"de-censoring" by inserting your own version of what was said, as a quote from a living person, is really, really not OK. The version you're giving is not supported by the source, and hence is a WP:BLP violation. Additionally, you're adding it in the section related to the protests - but the alleged statement is nothing to do with the protests. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about to be honest. It's not "my own version" of what he said, it's what the sources have reported that he's said and that he's literally explicitly said on Twitter. The version I'm giving is exactly what the source is saying, just following Wikipedia's MOS rather than the ABCs. And it directly relates to the protests because it's in an ABC report about the protests. If you seriously feel it doesn't belong there, then move it to the lead or to the section about his suspension, but it's belongs in the article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It was your own version, because: 1) You originally added that these were "Chinese" students, which is not true, 2) you've added it right after the bit concerning the allegations of people assaulting Pavlou, heavily implying that the assault was provoked by insults, 3) The MOS states that we should change as little as possible when quoting, but you are replacing the phrase "C-word" from the ABC article with your own version, 4) The ABC article your relying on is not about the protest but instead about the suspension (see the title: "UQ senate will not intervene in anti-Chinese government student Drew Pavlou ban, waves through appeal") and so, again, adding it in the part about the protest seems to be to simply imply that the alleged assaults during the protests were provoked, 5) there is no relationship at all supported by the sources between this insult directed at business students and the protests. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, and? I've already accepted fault, fixed it, and apologised for my misinterpretation of the source. I don't know what you want from me?
2. My interpretation of the source is that it was a counter-allegation to Pavlou's allegation of being assaulted, and I'm pretty sure I explicitly wrote "Counter-allegations were...". At no point did I say, "The alleged assault against Pavlou was provoked by...".
3. MOS:SIC is somewhat blurry in my opinion on this, so let's replace cunts with "c-word {{sic}}" as per MOS.
ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Racial claims on Drew Pavlou post

Hi, I've changed this edit a few times but you seem to keep changing it back. You are writing that Drew called "Chinese business and finance students c-word". Obviously, the point being that it was a racial attack. The fact of the matter is, the actual article that you're sourcing doesn't say that it was specified at Chinese students at all. It simply said that he stated it. You claim that we must follow what the sources say (and I agree) but you do not. I don't know why you're so insistent that it does. Originally I referenced the specific social media post that the article referenced but that was deleted too. I've included a tweet from Drew which contains the post. I can try to find a source with the specific allegation and email it to you if need be. But, even if that's not possible, you writing that it was directly specifically at Chinese students is an incorrect contextualisation you've jumped to at best, or you're purposefully misconstrued this at worst.

https://twitter.com/DrewPavlou/status/1301770034943983616?s=20

GooseVVV (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@GooseVVV: Hey! Thanks for pointing that out. I made a massive rewrite of the article after it was poorly used as a platform to advocate and defend Pavlou, and must have just mucked that up. I've gone and removed the race qualifier from the statement, but since it's a controversial (rightly so) and exceptional argument, using Pavlou's Twitter post as a citation with the explicit intention of effectively appeasing him about the content of his own article isn't exactly appropriate. Since he's claiming I'm a malicious editor (woot), let me just qualify that he can point out what he sees as issues as per our conflicted editors policy, but he doesn't have any right to guide or direct the content and his requests/concerns are subject to review from non-involved editors. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grill'd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A friendly request

Dear ItsPugle, may I ask you to post a brief opinion on this talk page regarding the moving of the article William IV of the United Kingdom to a simpler William IV? Gratefully yours, M. Armando (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

I have reverted your redirection of Exclusive economic zone of Australia. You proposed that this article be merged and received only one support vote, from a sockpuppet who also closed the discussion and merged the article. That was reverted because the sockpuppet actions were invalid. Since then 2001:8003:9008:1301:f093:8438:63b6:a7b9 has demonbstrated opposition to the merge. As the merge proposer and a discussion participant, it is inappropriate for you to determine consensus and merge the articles. The discussion needs to proceed until there is consensus to either merge or not to merge. In the event that there is no consensus either way, the discussion has to be closed as "no consensus", which means no merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Sorry, but I can't seriously think there's any logical opposition to the merge. The logic shared by the IP user, who has only ever engaged on these topics despite showing some understanding of WP (suggesting it could possibly be an editor signed out), is flawed. The original merge discussion was open for 14 days, during which time it received one support !vote from an account we now know to be a sock puppet, then closed. There was literally no objections or anything about this, even with other discussions taking place on the talk page afterwards, until a week ago when it was found out the user was a sock. The content on the EEZ of Australia article is word for word the same as the content on EEZ#Australia, and there has been no editorial interest in expanding the EEZ of Australia article for almost 10 months now, and even then, there's been no demonstrated significance of Australia's EEZ beyond simply being an EEZ, so it's unlikely there'll be enough content to qualify an entirely new article in the foreseeable future. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

T:PB Tmbox

Hello, ItsPugle. I noticed your request at NPOVN for feedback on the Tmbox at Talk:Proud Boys, and, while the request wasn't to me, thought I'd chime in. Firstly, I'd agree that the large number of edit requests on that Talk page is sub-optimal, particularly those that don't reference either reliable sources or policy; and I appreciate the effort to do something to address it. Thank you.
As regards the content of the Tmbox itself, I see a couple of places where the language might be rephrased so as to reduce the chance that it will be seen as "in itself a POV issue". Firstly, the first sentence takes a view on the article subject, and, while that view may be accurate, presenting it as an "official" view of Wikipedia is something we should avoid. I think we can say the essential thing, and thereby address the numerous edit requests, without appearing to make a judgement. And that essential is that we must give due weight to viewpoints according to their prominence in reliable sources - we can't take the article subject's stated self-view and only include that. We also can't take the article subject's stated self-view and call the independent views "wrong".
I also think we would do better to reference WP:NPOV#DUE instead of WP:FRINGE; the latter really should be reserved for topics where there is a strong scientific consensus - Flat Earth being the classic. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ryk72: That's all good, you're more than welcome to give your two cents! How about something like this:

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

First thoughts are that I agree with your thoughts expressed elsewhere that it could be stronger; and I'm not sure either clause of the last sentence is needed. Will try to think of specifics when I get some time. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

TP USA lead rewrite

ItsPugle, I think you did a really nice job with the lead on TPUSA. I wanted to let you know why I removed just a part of your edit. I pulled the part about the facebook accounts from the opening paragraph. As I said in my edit note I don't think its DUE for the first paragraph as I don't think something a subsidiary group did would be the most significant thing about the group beyond the basic facts. My though is, that is an example of one of the list of things the organization has done that have been viewed as conversational. I think you could edit the second paragraph to put in some type of high level summary that the group has been involved in several controversies with something like a 1-2 sentence summary. If you think of a way you might want to rework that I would be happy to self revert so you could avoid the 1RR limit on the article. Of course you can wait 24hr and then it won't matter. BTW, that disagreement aside I do think you did a good job with cleaning up the lead. Springee (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Thank you so much! Yeah, that's perfectly fine to remove it; I was a bit hesitant in the first place to include it anyways. I've just added a sentence just after TPUSA's support of the Trump campaign that quickly skims over what I see as the three largest controversies not already mentioned, but I don't have any issues if you think it'd be better in the second paragraph (since that's also largely about the controversial Professor Watchlist anyways). Do you think it's worth adding back a sentence, possibly even a section, under the #Controversies heading about the removal of the three hundred or however many accounts from Facebook and Instagram over misinformation? Ah, and I completely forget to check about 1RR, whoops - hopefully since it's not disruptive (I hope!) it's all good, but I'll need to keep that in mind for next time hahaha. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In the body of the article that content is part of the TP Students section. As for the lead I always struggle with this. It seems many editors want to include specific sins in the lead. My personal feeling is in most cases what is significant at the summary level is that they seem to be doing an number of things that have resulted in criticism/disputes. The problem is how to say that and making sure other editors don't feel like such summaries are an attempt to whitewash a topic. That talk page hasn't always been the most collaborative but perhaps editors there might have a suggestion for how to summarize in 1-2 sentences. I'm glad to know that you were on the fence with that. So often reverting part of someone's work can feel personal. Springee (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit here [[3]]. I would suggest your new edit should be added to paragraph 2. Perhaps the Trump support could also be added to paragraph 2 just so it doesn't look like a single dangling sentence... well that or is there something else we can add about Trump support to make that sentence look less like an add on? Springee (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Totally agree, I'll move it down now. And yeah, the paradoxes of Wikipedia: balancing collaboration and respect with the revert part of BRD. I'll start a discussion, but it might just be a sort of thing where we use a section link to #Controversies with a statement like Turning Point USA has been subject to a number of controversies around the group's advocacy and organization. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ABC Television, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC Kids and ABC HD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)