OXYLYPSE
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
3CX
editHi
You said you want to merge articles regarding 3CX.
This topic is very important to me and I’m considering my position.
Please update the talk page on the article ASAP so we can put an end to this madness. 2A0C:B381:5FA:2400:1139:FDAB:278A:6308 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey there, I will reply on the talk page OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
fresh and fit page
editThis previous revision was not unbiased because it contains language and framing that could lead readers to form certain opinions about the podcast and its hosts, rather than simply presenting factual information. Here are a few reasons why it's not entirely objective:
Loaded Language: Phrases like "controversial figures and ideologies" and "disparaging remarks" introduce subjective opinions without fully explaining the context. This can make the reader view the podcast hosts negatively.
Selective Focus: While the passage mentions both criticism and support, it primarily highlights negative events, such as demonetization, bans for hate speech, and offensive comments, without balancing this with any positive or neutral aspects, like the podcast's popularity or positive feedback from its audience.
Unsubstantiated Assertions: The phrase "the contradiction is that [they are] very much part of the mainstream and validating the usual tropes about gender and violence against women" is a claim that isn't fully backed by evidence within the passage, and it presents a critical viewpoint as fact.
Lack of Neutral Tone: The background section seems to emphasize criticism and controversy, making it appear as though these issues define the podcast, rather than being part of a broader, more balanced discussion. For an unbiased approach, the text should aim to present facts and events without implying judgment or selecting information that emphasizes one perspective over another. 73.172.168.34 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @73.172.168.34,
- That response looks awfully AI-generated. That said, you make some great points. Go ahead and put them into practice instead of just blanking the sections you disagree with. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ironically the redrafted article was also done by AI to be less biased and neutral; that's what it came up with. I did put it into to practice. What I did was remove the obscene language and biased opinions about whether or not their talking points are "dispariging" to women. As their fanbase doesn't believe so, but you and the other editors do. So YOU all should practice unbaised writing, not me... Xlifter9000 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Again, you cannot just blank huge sections of an article and replace it with your opinion. Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- They're arent blank and it isnt my opinion. its your opinion that fresh and fit are bad people. I am providing a balanced neutral perspective. All i did was condense the sections. You act like i wrote nothing but positive accollades about them. Why are you so pressed to make it biasedly and obviously negative. I read YOUR VERSION as a non-supporter of them and came away with a negative take. You think other readers wont? Xlifter9000 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Besides to revert your blanking, I have never edited that page. I have no idea what the podcast is but I find it hilarious you don't see the problem with blanking several well cited sections that show the hosts in a negative light to replace them with "Although controversial at times, Fresh and Fit has cultivated a loyal following". OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- yes because that is neutral and balanced... Stating every negative opinion a detractor has about a person/entity is not unbiased if you really want to go there. That is like taking your info strictly from ex members of an organization/ frat, then saying oh yeah frats are bad all around, not taking into account some people just had singularly bad experiences or did not relate to the organization..... saying they are contreverisal is a true statement, while also noting they have amassed a huge following that is loyal is not only true, but a balanced and fair assesment. They are contreversial and they have a huge following goofy. Xlifter9000 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have raised this at ANI instead. I will stop reverting your edits at this time. OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- yes because that is neutral and balanced... Stating every negative opinion a detractor has about a person/entity is not unbiased if you really want to go there. That is like taking your info strictly from ex members of an organization/ frat, then saying oh yeah frats are bad all around, not taking into account some people just had singularly bad experiences or did not relate to the organization..... saying they are contreverisal is a true statement, while also noting they have amassed a huge following that is loyal is not only true, but a balanced and fair assesment. They are contreversial and they have a huge following goofy. Xlifter9000 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Besides to revert your blanking, I have never edited that page. I have no idea what the podcast is but I find it hilarious you don't see the problem with blanking several well cited sections that show the hosts in a negative light to replace them with "Although controversial at times, Fresh and Fit has cultivated a loyal following". OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- They're arent blank and it isnt my opinion. its your opinion that fresh and fit are bad people. I am providing a balanced neutral perspective. All i did was condense the sections. You act like i wrote nothing but positive accollades about them. Why are you so pressed to make it biasedly and obviously negative. I read YOUR VERSION as a non-supporter of them and came away with a negative take. You think other readers wont? Xlifter9000 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Again, you cannot just blank huge sections of an article and replace it with your opinion. Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ironically the redrafted article was also done by AI to be less biased and neutral; that's what it came up with. I did put it into to practice. What I did was remove the obscene language and biased opinions about whether or not their talking points are "dispariging" to women. As their fanbase doesn't believe so, but you and the other editors do. So YOU all should practice unbaised writing, not me... Xlifter9000 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
some human guidance on dead links
editI have just noticed, at the top of the "Revision history" page for an article that I am working through, mention of the external tool "Fix dead links"; having for the moment simply removed a pair of these, I would appreciate some guidance on how I might get started in identifying viable updates using this tool. Seeing what I saw after again logging in to try to kick off the process for this tool, I could tell that some human guidance is going to need to come first. Thanks in advance. Cebran2003 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Cebran2003 I can't say I've ever used the tool! Lots of links end up dead on Wikipedia. There's some best practices at Wikipedia:Link rot - Wikipedia - specifically "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". Thanks, OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am thinking that that poor practice would be on a par with deleting solely because the source appeared at first blush not to be revelatory for the material citing it, and I would not even consider doing either. More importantly, of course, that link is obviously a huge source, so thanks so much for sharing it! Cebran2003 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, immediately after denying that I would consider doing either, and notably the former, I just had to second-guess myself in view of my original questions. I am delighted to report that I indeed engaged in nothing so rash, and more delighted to share what I did instead. In one case I added "In a 2012 interview" (info figuring in the citation to the dead link) into the running text before deleting the dead link (ref number in running text, and then unused-elsewhere ref itself) and moving on. In the other case I deleted only the ref number from the running text. Hopefully these steps were fine, perhaps even commonplace. Cebran2003 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am thinking that that poor practice would be on a par with deleting solely because the source appeared at first blush not to be revelatory for the material citing it, and I would not even consider doing either. More importantly, of course, that link is obviously a huge source, so thanks so much for sharing it! Cebran2003 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
surname-prefix capitalization, through immigrant choice and/or per style-manual guidance
editDo you have info about a certain hatnote (found by me for Martin Van Buren and the two Van Halen brothers) touching on surname-prefix capitalization, which may happen through immigrant choice and/or per style-manual guidance? In its current form, it lends itself to the incorrect inference that the prefix capitalization inherently figures in the name in the origin country. It is also, by simply declaring that a prefix is mandatory (by implication, for purposes of the individual article), unclear about why one is required in certain cases. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Cebran2003 Honestly, no clue! If it's not covered by MOS, I'd suggest you boldly edit it as you see fit, and if you're reverted you can discuss it further with someone who is a little more knowledgeable? Sorry I can't be more help! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The thing I am wondering about is the location and editability of the hatnote, not its attempted guidance per se. Anything about location, preferably about editability too in case that should be an issue? Cebran2003 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I'll try haha.. Disambiguation hat notes usually go at the very top of a page, but you can get hatnotes that just go at the top of sections too? Regarding the content/name capitalization, based off van (Dutch) and this post, I think you'd be okay to change it (if I'm understanding correctly)? -OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, the location of the source code (which is why I thought to ask here). "In this Dutch name, the surname is Van Buren, not Buren" is obtained from "family name hatnote|lang=Dutch| prefixed whatever | unprefixed whatever" (both "Dutch" and "surname" being duly bracketed, of course). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ohhh I think I'm understanding now.. This page?? OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, the location of the source code (which is why I thought to ask here). "In this Dutch name, the surname is Van Buren, not Buren" is obtained from "family name hatnote|lang=Dutch| prefixed whatever | unprefixed whatever" (both "Dutch" and "surname" being duly bracketed, of course). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I'll try haha.. Disambiguation hat notes usually go at the very top of a page, but you can get hatnotes that just go at the top of sections too? Regarding the content/name capitalization, based off van (Dutch) and this post, I think you'd be okay to change it (if I'm understanding correctly)? -OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The thing I am wondering about is the location and editability of the hatnote, not its attempted guidance per se. Anything about location, preferably about editability too in case that should be an issue? Cebran2003 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)