Open main menu


A cake just for thee!Edit

WikiCup 2018 November newsletterEdit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

  1.   Courcelles (submissions)
  2.   Kosack (submissions)
  3.   Kees08 (submissions)
  4.   SounderBruce (submissions)
  5.   Cas Liber (submissions)
  6.   Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7.   Iazyges (submissions)
  8.   Ceranthor (submissions)


All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

WikiCup 2019 March newsletterEdit

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  •   Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  •   MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  •   Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  •   Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  •   Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

The following improvements need to be made to the page for Vicente Gonzalez (politician)Edit

Information needs to be updated. The current information holds sources that support this update. All other updates can be sourced through resources from Vicente Gonzalez's congressional website: https://gonzalez.house.gov/

If I am not "allowed" to make these changes on a website that promotes the ability to do so, then please direct me to whoever can make these changes. If not, I will continue to push for these changes (which are verifiable), until the changes are made.

Requested changes below:


Early life, education, and early careerEdit

Gonzalez was born in Corpus Christi, Texas in 1967[2] to [Olga Cantu] and [Vicente Gonzalez], a Korean War veteran and U.S. Merchant Marine. Gonzalez attended Roman Catholic School in Corpus Christi for part of his primary education, but eventually dropped out of high school during his junior year. He went onto obtain a G.E.D. and returned to school by enrolling at Del Mar Junior College where he received an Associate’s Degree in Banking and Finance.[3][4]

In 1992, Gonzalez received his Bachelor of Science degree in aviation business administration from the Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University on the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station. After high school, and throughout college, Gonzalez traveled to almost 100 countries around the world.

In 1996, Gonzalez obtained his Juris Doctor from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (now Texas A&M University School of Law) in Fort Worth, Texas. While a law student, he interned for then Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX-27). He trained in Negotiation at Harvard Law School [in Cambridge, Massachusetts]. In 1997, he founded the law firm, V. Gonzalez & Associates, in McAllen, Texas. He is a member of the Bar Associations of Texas and New York.[5]

As an attorney, Gonzalez successfully recovered millions in proceeds for businesses, homeowners and public schools throughout the country. His professional successes prompted an invitation to join the prestigious Million Dollar & Multi-million Dollar Advocates Forum, a membership reserved for less than one percent of American attorneys.

Gonzalez's wife, Lorena Saenz Gonzalez, is a former educator and school administrator from McAllen, Texas.

DYK for Beth Van DuyneEdit

 On 3 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beth Van Duyne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Beth Van Duyne, the mayor of Irving, Texas, from 2011 to 2017, initially became involved in politics due to a zoning dispute? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beth Van Duyne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beth Van Duyne), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Steven Matz questionEdit

Hey Muboshgu. Saw your most recent edits to my Steven Matz edits, most of which I am fine with or, or at least I accept them. I noticed, however, that you removed the final paragraph of 2018 that summed up his career stats at the conclusion of that year, with the rationale " we don't list his career stats after each season". It seems to me this is worthwhile information to include, and I wanted to know whether there was a policy-based reason for your removal? Is this just your subjective opinion that it's too much detail, or is there some sort of MOS for baseball-articles that specifically says such information should be excluded? It seems to me its inclusion meetings Wikipedia policy, but I haven't re-added it yet because I wanted to ask your explanation first... — Hunter Kahn 02:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn, that was my subjective opinion. You can raise it with others at WT:BASEBALL if you want to get more opinions. I don't believe I've seen an article give career stats at the end of each season; we usually just give the season stats at the end of each year and career stats at retirement, if I'm not mistaken. I suppose it could be WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOMUCH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm personally of the opinion that it's worth including, but I'll raise the issue at WT:BASEBALL as you said to see if there's a consensus on it, and I'll abide by that. — Hunter Kahn 17:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    Hunter Kahn, I will as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

66.204.4.Edit

Hello.
Warned where: on the user_talk page of a range? Or—as you opted to—on user_talk:66.204.4.192 which didn’t make a single edit to en.Wikipedia? ☺
If you are about any of 64 individual user_talks, then a plenty of warnings exists: see user_talk:66.204.4.220 and user_talk:66.204.4.206 for examples. Your pointless round-about may only frustrate Wikipedians who spend their personal time to report vandals. Ask your script developer to disable operations with ranges because s/he was unable to handle it correctly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, I'm not familiar with dealing with IP ranges. I see now the last part of the IP you warned included a range. That should have been made more clear in your report, and I would've left it to another admin to deal with. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I did not warn anybody in the /26 – other Wikipedians did it. My report presented a range which was unambiguously stated by the / character impossible in usernames, individual IPs included. The {{IPvandal}} template generates correct Special:Contribs and Special:Block links for ranges, hence it isn’t clear why should I take any special precaution. Other sysops processed my rangeblock requests without complaints. If your software (in a very broad sense) errs on ranges, is it my problem, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi, like I said, I didn't notice the slash. Your text warning was not explicit about it, so I failed to notice it. The "software" that didn't catch it was my brain. Remember that you're dealing with humans here, and none of us are perfect. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a thread WP:Administrators' noticeboard #Trend toward more inappropriate AIV reports. Wouldn’t you comment? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal bias?Edit

Editors will lash out at us for making edits yet no one will fix the bias on President Trumps page Dmmeds56 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Dmmeds56, based on this edit, it seems like the personal bias is yours. Do not add unreferenced material for no purpose other than to disparage a subject you personally do not like again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  BradvChetsfordIzno
  FloquenbeamLectonar
  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes

  CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wild CardEdit

Hey, I was wondering on these MLB teams on the WC berth achievement years, I don't think it's spelled right. Don't the C supposed to be capital? Like is it supposed to be 'Wild Card berths' instead of 'Wild card berths'? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sports Fan 1997, I think it's correct. I don't think wild card in that sense is a proper noun. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, are you sure though? Because like 'World Series' and 'Central Division' are proper nouns. On TV and social media they have it spelled 'Wild Card'. I guess some is right. The NFL has it as 'Wild Card' berths Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is a proper noun I'm willing to edit it for every MLB team on here. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sports Fan 1997, I am absolutely not sure about whether or not "Wild Card" is a proper noun. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
:Muboshgu, I'm not sure either but I think it is, is there any way we can figure it out? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chris DuncanEdit

 On 7 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chris Duncan, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 22:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Thanks for taking up this ITNC. This would not have suceeded without your efforts. regards. --DBigXray 10:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jrrbrts69Edit

I blocked him for the attack on your talk page. I also reverted him at the same article for his atrocious use of commas - they really made a mess. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Scott Taylor politician editsEdit

You described the edits on the Scott Taylor page as "unconstructive." That may be your OPINION, and that is all that it is. The language reported on the Scott Taylor page is absolutely not facts or a fact. Poorly written newspaper articles are not enough to rely on, especially when people's names are included in wikipedia articles in a negative light. The names are irrelevant to Scott Taylor's page. You do not know any of the facts regarding this issue, and others do. Yours is not the final authority on what happened, by whom and when. Enough of your high and mighty Wikipedia resolution procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune47 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Neptune47, Your edit history on that page and you are uncivil tone in this message are quite unconstructive. engage in discussion on the top page about this issue without edit warring on the page itself or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu - Your incessant de-editing about a subject you know nothing about leads me to conclude that you are not acting in good faith and you are being unconstructive. Why is the language presented on this Wikipedia article unable to be edited by people who actually know facts about the matter? What or whose agenda are you promoting? Many of the sentences in this article are not verifiable and are flat out nonsense, yet you continue to delete good faith efforts to fix them. I am going to contact Wikipedia about you being unable to engage in actual dialogue and for promoting inaccurate information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune47 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Horrible journalistEdit

Hi Muboshgu, hope all is well. I saw you deleted Horrible journalist. Would it be possible to salt the article? I don't see it on the title blacklist and I can't think of any reason for this article to be recreated. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

LuK3, sure. Happy to. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

BumgarnerEdit

My apologies, I must have misclicked something when checking recent changes without realizing it. Melody 01:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Melody Concerto, that's okay. I misclick often on my watchlist, especially on a touchscreen. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 
Hello, Muboshgu. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your GA nomination of Independent Democratic ConferenceEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Independent Democratic Conference you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Ibraheem Samirah pageEdit

I made an effort to ensure that my edits were entirely factual. For example, Samirah has spoken publicly about his support for BDS. Please explain why you believe that my comments are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandar1 (talkcontribs) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Gandar1, the sources you used. Big League Politics is a right-wing source. Headlines of "Democrat Lawmaker With Ties To Hamas Front Group" and "Virginia Democrat Delegate Candidate Said Israel Is Worse Than KKK, Told Ariel Sharon To Burn In Hell" are not neutral. Surely if he's spoken in favor of BDS there are mainstream sources that back that up? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Cole SulserEdit

 On 17 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cole Sulser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Major League Baseball player Cole Sulser has two degrees in engineering from Dartmouth College? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cole Sulser. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cole Sulser), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop Your Unwarranted Threats and BiasEdit

Including yet another example in a series of violations of military policy by a uniformed officer by quoting her own words is not disruptive editing. Stop abusing whatever power you think you have and allowing your bias to conceal important facts about a candidate for office.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what you're doing is disruptive, and you have three editors telling you so. Stop now or you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain how exactly it met the definition of disruptive? That is a lie. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Resinserting something that another editor objected to is disruptive. I further explained the troubles with the content on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not reinserting. The other editor objected on the supposed grounds that what I said suggested that a law had been broken. All reference to the relevant law was removed. The second post was only of her own tweet and a direct quote. Now that you have been proven wrong once, explain how that was disruptive, or else restore the contribution immediately and report the editors who did this.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To what purpose did you reinsert the tweet? When do we ever include something somebody tweeted without any context? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. In the context that it is a policy position of hers, and a controversy, which are both related to her service in the military. Does every political page not include policy positions and controversies without further context? I have to say, the further I go back on your talk page, the more it looks like there is a pattern of bias in favor of liberal political parties, and the more I see liberal editors asking you to intervene on their behalf, including in relation to Tulsi Gabbard and Rashida Tlaib. That needs to stop. That is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Quoting a controversial policy position stated by a presidential candidate is not.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."[1]174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. The paragraph that discussed that she did something mixing the military with politics and was rebuked for it. In other words, you're still suggesting with the inclusion of the tweet that she did something wrong. This is original research, and not approproiate for inclusion. Meanwhile, your right-wing political bias is showing regarding your comments about "liberal editors". We have no "liberal editors", just people who try to uphold Wikipedia's policies including NPOV, and people who don't. Again, please stop including your disruptive material and abide by the policies Wikipedia has set out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a completely false statement. You are inferring that she did something wrong because of your interpretation of what she said. I did not saying anything to that effect, or anything at all other than her rank and that she was referring to the President. Quoting a person's own words is not research. Niether is quoting the law, but we can set that aside for now, until a third-party legal scholar does claim that she broke the law. You cannot possibly hope to convince anyone who is not heavily biased that I cannot quote what she says about the military while she is serving in the capacity of an officer in the military because quoting her would somehow constitute research. And I was referring to the paragraph above what I posted from over a year ago by a completely different editor as being the context, not anything I wrote. On what grounds do you presume to rebuke me for simply quoting an American politician accurately with a reference. Let's examine the OR policy in greater detail and see if quoting someone meets that definition. I'm copying our discussion thus far and moving it to the talk page for the article.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you are implying she did something wrong, and clearly on the wrong side of this issue. There's nothing for me to accomplish here in this discussion with you, and I have more important things to do than run around in circles with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You are placing material from a primary source next to material from another source in an attempt to imply the Tweet in some way demonstrates a "pattern" from the prior source. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and contentious claims about living people.
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:BLP) You do not have an independent reliable source stating that Tweet is in any way relevant to this article or the prior source.
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." {WP:BLP} If you restore the material again, you will be blocked again.
This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of policy. The same reasoning prevents us from posting a source discussing, for instance, a president or senator's claim followed by a tweet from that president or senator apparently contradicting that claim, unless the tweet is directly discussed in that context by independent reliable sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Independent Democratic ConferenceEdit

The article Independent Democratic Conference you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Independent Democratic Conference for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

November Sei blockEdit

Hello, I was wondering what comment if any you might have on November Sei's unblock request. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

331dot, I'll comment over there.– Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack William 22 (talkcontribs) 22:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 

Nineteen Eighty-FourEdit

Hello,

I'm just replying to the message you left me about Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell. To begin with, English is not my native language. More importantly, the rules to properly post anything at all on Wikipedia without the looming threat of instant deletion almost require an encyclopedic knowledge of editorial etiquette - and this is only the third time I contribute to any article, since I created an account on Wikipedia. Also, I am not even sure this is the proper way to contact you, as it is the first time I ever answer anyone on Wikipedia.

So, assuming you do get this message, I would like to have a better explanation than the long definition you gave me. As I said, English is not my native language and all I understand is that, for some reason involving sources, my contribution was not appreciated.


Here is the contested material :

underlying theme of religion Big Brother is revered almost religiously and the Party has instated a cult of personality around him. For all matters and purposes, he is omniscient and omnipresent (as demonstrated by the fact that he has many spies, telescreens and listening devices). His word is law and he can manipulate the past, the present and the future (thanks to propaganda and the Records Department or by stating that dinosaurs were not real - which is a creationist point of view) and rewrite the laws of Physics and nature (by saying that the stars are only one kilometer away and adopting a geocentric model). He can also transform any number into any other number (by deciding that 2+2=5 or that, sometimes, 4 can either be 3 or 5 or any other number that the Party wants).

At the end of the novel, it is revealed that the christian god has been outlawed (which is why a poet landed in the Ministry of Love, after failing to replace "god" by another word rhyming with "rod") and replaced by "power" or Big Brother. O' Brien also said that Big Brother is immortal (since the Party will continue to use his image for ever). Many subjects that have always been considered sins and heresy by religions throughout History (such as sex) are considered crimes by the Party. It is also just as easy to use Doublethink as it is to say that a certain god "works in mysterious ways". The everlasting war between the Superpowers could be seen as the never ending war between good and evil (and, of course, the Party decides which side the people are supposed to consider either good or evil).

Of particular interest is the fact that each Ministry is reminiscent of a horseman of the apocalypse. The Ministry of Plenty's purpose is to starve the people : MiniPlenty is Famine. The Ministry of Peace's purpose is to deal with war : MiniPax is War. The Ministry of Truth's purpose is to lie : MiniTrue could be seen as Pestilence, as it's lies can be seen as a plague that pollutes the mind of its victims. The Ministry of Love's purpose is to enforce the law. Its methods are reminiscent of the inquisition (though the Party prefers to convert its victims, before killing them) and always consist of torture and execution : MiniLuv is Death. Just as the horsemen of the apocalypse are agents of god that bring the armageddon to the world, the four Ministries are tools of Big Brother that bring misery to the citizens of Oceania.


Basically, are you saying I should cite the exact passages where telescreens are mentioned ? Should I cite the exact passage where O'Brien tells Winston that "god is power"? Should I cite the exact passage where the poet is sent to MiniLuv for failing to find a proper rhyme ? Should I cite the exact passage where O'Brien shows 4 fingers to his victim and says that 4 can either be 3 or 5 or any other number ?

Should I leave the remark about the negationism of dinosaur remains, but delete the comment that creationists also deny the reality of fossils ? Should I leave the remark that Big Brother's Party claims the stars are only one kilometer away from earth, but delete the fact that the Party adopts a geocentric model - even though O'Brien clearly says ‘What are the stars? [...] .They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.’ ? Should I add the citation ‘We are the priests of power [...] God is power' ? Should I justify Big Brother's immortality by the dialogue between Winston and O'Brien ‘Will Big Brother ever die?’ ‘Of course not. How could he die? Next question.’ ?

Since O'Brien makes a point of reality only existing inside the human mind, should I really explain that Big Brother's powers (immortality, omniscience, violations of the laws of nature and physics, ...) are really just metaphorical ? Should I also explain that, ultimately, it does not matter if they are just metaphorical, as O'Brien makes it clear that reality is exactly what the Party decides it to be ?

As for Big Brother's cult of personality, it is made perfectly obvious, throughout the entire novel, as his face is shown everywhere and he should always be loved and obeyed and never questioned and never disputed - just like any guru or deity. Should I really explain it in greater detail, when it is really impossible to read Nineteen Eighty-Four, without noticing it ? Also, Ingsoc, neo-bolchevism and Death Worship are the exact same thing - it just has different names, in different places in the world. This appellation of Death 'Worship' does add to the whole religious undertone.

I thought the parallel between the Ministries and the horsemen was worth mentioning and, in all honesty, I was surprised it had not been made before, but I can understand that it might not have been the proper section to include it in. Should I move it to a 'Trivia section' ?

Was every single part of my contribution deserving of a 'memory hole' ? What parts should I alter, exactly ?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack William 22 (talkcontribs)

Jack William 22, this is the appropriate way to contact me. I don't believe that the content you provided is appropriate at all. First of all, you didn't provide any references. If this was an expert's interpretation of the novel, there should be some sort of citation for that. If the interpretation of the novel is yours, then it does not belong as we do not engage in original research or synthesis of existing sources on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

MoveEdit

Thanks for all your help with that. I'd tried a number of different ways to fix it without any success at all. Thanks so much for all your assistance. 00:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Muboshgu".