Subscriptions are at User talk:MichaelMaggs/Subscriptions
Orphaned non-free image File:The last children of Tokyo, Tawada, 2018.png
Thanks for uploading File:The last children of Tokyo, Tawada, 2018.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thanks for providing valuable advice to the people completing my task over at the Reward Board! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
Ooh, thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Response to your message
Hi MichaelMaggs,
If you read the Balloon Release page you'll see that these little scraps of plastic and rubber do nothing but wreak havoc on both domesticated animals and wildlife, and even on human lives as well, wherever they come to Earth.
Someone from the balloon industry insists on casting the idea of releasing many balloons at once in a romantic or festive light. Of course these releases appear very pretty and exciting on the face of it, but they are devastating in their effects once the balloons fall to Earth once more.
I'm merely removing the commercially motivated mischaracterization of balloon releases as fun or romantic, because of their terrible consequences. As you can see if you just skim down the page, not only are many disastrous results recorded, but may organizations stand in opposition to these thoughtless and environmentally devastating events.
I don't know why you keep reversing my edits - I'm taking my own time to set this right. Please tell me how I can make these changes permanent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettt (talk • contribs)
Please reply as soon as you can, I'm feeling very frustrated and worried about this.
- Hello Bettt, while I entirely sympathise with your view, and agree that balloon releases can have devastating consequences, Wikipedia tries to be neutral and to base its articles not on what you or I may think is morally right, but on what is discussed in reliable sources. In order to counteract what you describe as mischaracterizations of balloon releases as fun or romantic, you'd need to find and cite published reliable sources that make that argument. Several are already mentioned on the page, and simply deleting opposing views does not make for a neutral article. By the way, when you post a message on a talk page, remember to sign off with ~~~~, as that automatically adds a signature. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Arrgh - MichaelMaggs, would you leave a comment saying that torture and murder is ok? Because that's what these releases are. The worst thing they do is kill countless aquatic animals, who think they are jellyfish or other edible things, then they die, slowly, of starvation. There is NO justification for this. How many sea turtles must die to make this frivolous practice indefensible? If you don't care about the increasing amounts of trash in our oceans, or about the terrible effects on animals, I'd request someone from Wikipedia who does care step in. It's not fair that an industry shill would be allowed to promote something so destructive. There's got to be a way to remove all that trash about how romantic and wonderful it is, because that's not neutral, it's untrue. Please. Also, no offense, but please tell me who you are at Wikipedia. I need to know whether I'm speaking with someone who actually works for Wikipedia and not just another citizen making their own edits. Thanks. ~~~~ Bettt (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, are you there? Bettt (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- The thing is, some people do like doing balloon releases and don't care about the consequences. As a result, there are companies that exist to supply them. We have to report those facts neutrally, even if we don't like them. As I say, I agree with you that the practice is disgraceful, but that's my opinion, and neither I nor you can edit Wikipedia to reflect the world as we might like it to be. It's in my view neutral to say, as the article does, why certain people do this. It would not be neutral to allow companies to use Wikipedia to promote their services, but I don't think the page does that. Likewise, it is not for Wikipedia to suppress the fact that balloon releases are (still, unfortunately) pretty popular. In answer to your question, neither I nor any other editor "works at Wikipedia"; we are all volunteer editors, just like you are. Decisions on this and all other issues are generally made by consensus. You might like to open a discussion on the Balloon release talk page about how the article could be improved, or you can seek more detailed editing advice at the Teahouse. You'll find they are very friendly there. Good luck. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi again MichaelMaggs, So if I just give references and justifications for my edits, is that ok then? I'm going through and providing links to prove what I'm saying. Also - don't you think that the bit about "quiet, prayerful group activity at a funeral or solemn occasion" or "in celebration, as a substitute to confetti, in order to avoid an immediate mess." are not only gag-inducing, but entirely subjective? There's nothing prayerful about wholesale slaughter of wild animals by starvation and I believe I should be able to edit that text to say so. Of course as long as I provide links to either journalistic or legitimate environmental group sources to back up what I'm saying. Am I on the right track here? If you would, and if you have the time, would you please stay with me as I figure out how to do this? I'm doing a partial edit right now and would like your input on it when it's done. I'll publish it and you can see how that looks to you. Bettt (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, I provided sources for what I was saying and added the edit field you asked for. I hope this fixes the problems you had. I'm assuming you do not want the page for balloon releases to give the impression that there is no harm associated with these things, as the original did. Thanks, Bettt (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, was it you who set that awful warning on my talk page? If so please tell me why, and if not, please tell me who did.
Anyway, I did what you asked. You wanted sources and a statement about my edits, and I gave them.
And why shouldn't the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's image of the bird entangled in the ribbons go first before the pretty but deceptive image of the colorful balloons against the bright blue sky on their way to choke some sea turtles?
Certainly you don't think it's balanced for the first thing people to see is the current fertilizer about how wonderful these horrorshow balloon releases are. Bettt (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Bettt, the name of the editor leaving messages is always given in their signature, right at the end of their post. The message you mentioned was posted by an editor called Code Pending, but I see there have now been several others as well. You may find the concept of neutrality different from what you expect, but it is an essential feature of the encylopedia, and must be followed. It's simply not acceptable for an article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that something is "regrettable and irresponsible". You've been given multiple warnings, and if you are not to find yourself blocked for disruption you should follow my advice above and open a discussion about this on the article's talk page, Talk:Balloon_release. You are allowed (with reason) to make any argument you like there to see if you can obtain consensus from other editors as to how the article can be improved. I strongly advise that you don't make any further edits to the article itself unless and until you have gained gained agreement from other editors first on the talk page. If you work collaboratively there you may well find there are options for improving the article. That's what Wikipedia is all about. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
neutrality is not just reitering past and updated vocabulary
Hi MichaelMaggs, for the sake of neutrality, I added references from the newest research concerning female husbands, The Mary Hamilton case is still being described using description dating from the 18th century, but there are new academic sources studying these themes who do not reiterate the past vocabulary (just as we have to be careful in cases of with hunts and trial with the vocabulary and descriptions used to decribe witches who were tried in the Middle Ages). I appreciate you correcting my English, but I still maintain Hamilton should not be described as a "fraud" in the lead. This is not neutral in formulation IMO, it is a judgemental view. As this person identified and was even at one point married as Charles Hamilton, one cannot but avoid this name in the lead, while at the same time mentionning the prosecution and subsenquent punishment. the rest of the article, focusing only on cases of prosecutions of female husbands, while ignoring the cases where there were no punishments, was not very accurate and I added information that is accurately referenced.Nattes à chat (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nattes à chat, I'm happy to see some more recent sources being used to improve this article, and I don't have any objections to the changes you've made to the lead. There are just a couple of things, though. You shouldn't amend direct quotations; and you need to check carefully for typos (I've counted at least 15 obvious ones so far!). The way I do it is to copy the whole text into a Word processor and get the computer to highlight all the words it thinks may be wrong. Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to describe the marriage as 'legal': it wasn't according to the law at the time, hence the penalty. It might be more accurate to say that they 'went through a ceremony of marriage'. Anyway, it's good to have this article improved MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again Nattes à chat. A lot of 'female husband' material you've been adding to Mary Hamilton (transvestite) seems to cover an important social phenomenon that's notable enough to have a separate article of its own, rather than being squashed into a page on a specific historical person. I hope you like the new Female husband page and that you can help develop it further. All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I saw it thank you so much! I translated Mary Hamilton in French by the way and I saw that you wrote female husband. I have a hard time translating that expression in French, looking for French sources on the subject too! Now I am reading "Feminine masculinity" which adresses the phenomenom and also "how" to write about it and what kind of terminology to use, because while working on Mary Hamilton, this was the main hurdle. I am really starting to dig in the subject historically, it is fascinating. Anyway thanks for the conversation and the help, really appreciated! Nattes à chat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nattes à chat, thanks for the note. I now have access to Manion's book and when I get time I'll work on this some more. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Great! I also have True Sex: The Lives of Trans Men at the Turn of the Twentieth Century from emily Skidmore, and a French book called Genres fluides by Clovis Maillet, plus Female Masculinities from Jack Halbertstam. I have n ot finished reading everything yet. Nattes à chat (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also stumbled upon this https://face2faceafrica.com/article/fascinating-history-africas-female-husbands. Nattes à chat (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Great! I also have True Sex: The Lives of Trans Men at the Turn of the Twentieth Century from emily Skidmore, and a French book called Genres fluides by Clovis Maillet, plus Female Masculinities from Jack Halbertstam. I have n ot finished reading everything yet. Nattes à chat (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nattes à chat, thanks for the note. I now have access to Manion's book and when I get time I'll work on this some more. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I saw it thank you so much! I translated Mary Hamilton in French by the way and I saw that you wrote female husband. I have a hard time translating that expression in French, looking for French sources on the subject too! Now I am reading "Feminine masculinity" which adresses the phenomenom and also "how" to write about it and what kind of terminology to use, because while working on Mary Hamilton, this was the main hurdle. I am really starting to dig in the subject historically, it is fascinating. Anyway thanks for the conversation and the help, really appreciated! Nattes à chat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Eeny meeny miny moe
the version of Eeny Meeny Miny Moe I included is consistent with the other versions mentioned in this section. It is cited with a link to a newspaper article referencing the version I posted. Dgen (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on your talk page, the wording you added is not supported by the source, and neither is the reference to the 1980s. The wording must be fully supported by the source, not just "consistent with the other versions". Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
DYK nomination of One potato, two potato
Hello! Your submission of One potato, two potato at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pamzeis (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)