User talk:71.28.191.109

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May I ask why you are adding {{NPOV-section}} to random articles without explaining your reasons on their respective talk pages? --Chris (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that many of these articles have severe political and/or religious spin placed on them, for example, the use of the words "prolific diggers" of the Armadillo article within the third paragraph has specific ratial connotations, especially considering the northern regions of Texas where "Armadillo" is a racist epithet to refer to Korean US Highway Construction workers.
The mayonnaise article, too has many pointed implications. Not everyone has the same methods, and to suggest that other cultures haven't manufactured mayonnaise with traditional methods for thousands of years is grossly ethnocentric.
Finally, the statement about black having negative connotations is nothing but racism, and the phrase "Pan-American" smile is misrepresentational of the different cultural smiling techniques used in various regions.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that saying "black" has negative connotations is racism, as some of these reasons are clearly outlined in the article. The PC term is African American anyway, so I really don't see what the problem is. --Chris (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am appalled and offended by the fact that you would call these addendums "random" and I would suggest that you would examine your prejudices before accusing me of vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.191.109 (talk • contribs)
Please note the phrase without explaining your reasons on their respective talk pages. If you're going to tag articles as POV en masse, please explain on their talk pages prior to adding the tag or it can be easily seen as vandalism. --Chris (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to ask which prejudices in particular you are accusing me of having. --Chris (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that anyone who would call my revisions "random" obviously has a very isolated point of view and is easily roused by even the slightest disruption of said outlook of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.191.109 (talk • contribs)
Before you reply to this, please read WP:NPA. Still here?
As I said, I have no problem with you tagging articles POV if you explain why on the article's talk page. I cannot be expected to look at the notice and know immediately what is going through your mind.
Unlike your comment, I don't make the statement that if someone disagrees me they must have an isolated view of the world. Your opinion certainly is welcome. But I need to know your opinion first, so please use article talk pages before tagging something POV. --Chris (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm impressed at your ability to not get miffed at being accused of racism, while still defending yourself and representing your position well. I amm glad Wikipedia is professional enough to maintain standards without being scary and administrative. I actually placed those POV tags as a joke, commenting on the fact that they are often placed almost unnecissarily by people being too anxious to cover their own a**es. I'm glad you didn't get testy and were even willing to accomodate my recommendations as long as they were well founded. Wikipedia is one of the best things about the internet, and I spend hours researching random things (if you can track my IP you'll see I researched X-Men, Wal-Mart, and Howard Bellamy all within 24 hours of eachother) as a way to pass the time while educating myself. I got annoyed, however, at the willingness of administrators to place POV tags on articles which will obviously cause some controversy (notably the "criticisms of Wal-Mart" page. Most debate is even over semantics! (see the abortion talk page). Therefore, I thought it would be humourous to place POV tags on subjects that one could not possibly be not neutral on. You cannot tell me you didn't smile when seeing that the neutrality of an article on armadillos was being disputed. As if people are opinionated on the subject of armadillos! I wanted to test Wiki's reaction to someone accusing innocent articles of being non-neutral, and I found it to be satisfactory. Thanks for putting up with my mischief and I hope you maintained a good sense of humour. I also hope I'm my IP isn't banned for picking on you and playing an innocent joke, but examining Wiki's policy I can see that they are reluctant to resort to such draconian action unless someone is being blatantly disrespectful to the accepted rules. I'm glad a community like this was formed for the purpose of spreading information, and look forward to seeing it expanded. You can see to it that I will register and be productive as the joke has worn off, though I can't promise to give up a golden opportunity for genuine humour when I see it. I hope I didn't tick you off and ruin your day. Good luck at school (you and I are in the same year) and thanks for keeping it clean! 71.28.191.109 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)(aka Jarrod Lipshy soon to be user "J-Rod" if it is available)
I am glad that you have decided to stay. While I do not agree so much with your method I do understand your point. Good luck with your studies! --Chris (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Abortion

Thank you for your recent comments on Talk:Abortion. Please place new sections at the end of the page, not at the top, and sign using four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)