Madc090
Welcome Madc090!
I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Walter's talk page edit
Hi Madc090,
I'm an admin here. I noticed the back and forth on Walter's talk page. Users are allowed to remove, without reply, anything they want to on their talk page (there are a few exceptions that don't apply here). Now, that's not to say it's polite to do so. But it is the way it is.
To the extent that you're talking person-to-person, if they don't want to talk, you'll have to let it go. To the extent that you're talking about an article, it's better to have that conversation on the article talk page instead.
I hope, and believe, that not everyone you are going to encounter is as abrupt. Hope that helps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course, I merely wanted to ask a question and it’s been answered. Thank you for providing me with your insight. Madc090 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk page blanking edit
Please see WP:OWNTALK. I am permitted to remove any comments left on my talk page. Further, there is an edit notice on my talk page that reads in part "If you're here to tell me about an edit of yours that I reverted, please explain why it should be included on the article's talk page. I likely have the article on my watchlist and will see it eventually." So if you want to discuss the edit summary, the article's talk page is the correct place to do so. If I really wanted to discuss it, I would have moved your comment there, but it's not really a vital point, so I may not even respond there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Walter, of course, it’s your page and I respect that. I kindly ask that in the future, as we both are non-Indigenous people, I’m assuming, that we ask an Elder when we make comments. I again thank you for helping me edit the Canada Day page, however, the inference regarding NIPD as a solution to the discomfort that Indigenous people feel about Canada Day is problematic. Also, to question the size of the movement as bias is troubling. Perhaps it would be best to provide minor edits without providing our opinions, particularly when we have limited knowledge on the subject. Again, I ask you to talk to an Elder to see if any future comments would be appropriate. Madc090 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Inquiry regarding your comments on Indigenous views about Canada Day edit
Hi Walter, I'm at a loss with the various comments you are making regarding this topic. I appreciate you helping out with the editing of and aiding us, but I have real concerns when you make comments like when you inferred to me that NIPD was designed to appease Indigenous people so they wouldn't have problems with Canada Day in its current format, or the comment you made Weiser911 saying "...we do not need to draw attention to this content..." Again, I'm assuming that you are non-Indigenous and that perhaps you may not have the knowledge in this subject. I cannot help but feel these microagressions are without consultation with Indigenous Elders and I ask you in the future to talk to one. If you need help with this, I am more than happy to guide to someone as I too am not an Indigenous person. Honestly, I would love to see Wikipedia team up with Indigenous leaders to remove anti-Indigenous bias throughout its platform and I would suggest given your credibility as an editor, you could spearhead this. Perhaps talking to editors who are Indigenous would be a good start, otherwise, I encourage you to think about the comments you are presenting and how they can be viewed as not inclusive.
Thanks!
Pre-Columbian Era edit
I reverted you because indigenous is not a proper noun. Go ahead and make your other changes, but I just don't have time to fix that particular mistake. You might try to fix it in other articles also where you've changed it. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Indigenous is capitalized because Indigenous peoples are a group. Your logic of not being a noun is flawed as we would capitalize European people. Even the AP stylebook has said so. This is simply a demonstration of colonial thinking where we don’t consider Indigenous people as equals. Madc090 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- No need for personal attacks, especially when you don't know a person. A lot of sources don't capitalise it. I also looked at Indigenous rights which I must get around to fixing. But I didn't know about the AP style guide. See User talk:Yuchitown#Indigenous. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- And I've now made a number of changes to the article I mention (except for quotes of course) and other material. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Edits to Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People edit
I have reverted your edits to Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People because they likely do not have consensus from other editors, and because several of your edits changed capitalization within quoted material. Per Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting, We do not change anything in quoted material, other than trivial spelling and typographical errors, and and I do not see how one can claim that leaving "indigenous" uncapitalized in every instance within a sentence is a typographical error. While the Wikipedia:Manual of Style often makes reference to various style guides, the Manual of Style always takes precedence over any outside style guide. Please seek a consensus on the talk page before making such changes to this article again. - Donald Albury 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Donald, here are sources for you to look up regarding the word Indigenous. I would argue given that it is a description of a group of people, it supersedes any idea that items in quotations should remain in lower case. I am certain if we saw American or European in lower case in quotes, it would be changed to properly reflect that. [1]https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303 https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-terminology-guidelines-for-usage https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/ https://www.queensu.ca/indigenous/ways-knowing/terminology-guide https://www.apstylebook.com/race-related-coverage Madc090 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Madc090, it seems you might not have fully understood Donald Albury's explanations, so let me try as well:
- You may be of the opinion that the United Nations made an important mistake in that regard in the text of the declaration. And it's entirely fine to hold that opinion! As Wikipedia editors we do not need to agree with the article subjects (documents, organizations, people) we write about. What it not OK is to "correct" the declaration or quotes from it on Wikipedia, i.e. to mislead the reader into the assumption that the article subject said what we would have wanted them to say, rather than what they actually said. See also "principle of minimal change" in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
- Regarding the use of the term outside of quotes (i.e. when writing in "Wikipedia voice" as it is sometimes called), we have more leeway. However, it seems that you are offering these links in an attempt to convey that your preferred capitalization is an universal norm (like the capitalization of "American" or "European", or indeed also, say, "African") and that any deviation from it must be unambiguously regarded as a mistake (rather than simply as a diverging preference or convention). But that would clearly be untrue. For example, just looking at your last link, yes, it shows that the Associated Press has adopted this capitalization, and they are an important news service. However, Reuters is an important news service too, and they clearly have not adopted it [2]. Neither has the BBC [3].
- My recommendation would be to make your case at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. It looks like a previous similar proposal did not find consensus there in 2020, but I think it's possible a new proposal with better arguments could succeed. Again though, do not misrepresent something as an universal convention when it is not.
- Lastly, please refrain from arguing that other editors may have have inferior knowledge or cognitive capacities because of their ethnicity, as you did here - this kind of argument is not accepted on Wikipedia.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)