User talk:BelindaEdgeworth

Apologies

Hey BelindaEdgeworth, I want to apologize for my Bot (the one that reverted your edit to Shulamith_Firestone. The bot is in the testing phase, and the bot was very much in error by reverting your edit. I will tweak it to make sure that this error will not happen again. Please do not hesitate to ask questions on my talk page and let me be the first one to welcome you to wikipedia. I hope you like it here. Tim1357 ^talk 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dayo Gore

The article Dayo Gore has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Shulamith Firestone

The only "agenda" I have with regard to Firestone is a desire to produce an article which accurately and clearly shows the prevailing interpretations of her work. I moved the extensive quotations to footnotes in the interests of clarity - summarizing these positions in the text is easier on the reader than long quotations, while I appreciate the value of the quotations in providing further detail on these evaluations. I'm also concerned that we try and avoid inserting our own interpretations of Firestone and her reception into the article, which is why I altered some sentences to present criticisms of Firestone without presenting these criticisms as the views of Wikipedia, and asked for substantiation of parts of the article which go beyond presenting the specific views of named individuals and present these criticisms as the predominant response to Firestone. I should say I think it's probably true that most people with knowledge of Firestone agree with these criticisms of the role race plays in her work; I just think the article would be better if we could refer the reader to reliable sources for this evaluation.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You say: “I moved the extensive quotations to footnotes in the interests of clarity - summarizing these positions in the text is easier on the reader than long quotations,’’ but in fact you removed the quotations to footnotes and replaced them with vague, inaccurate descriptions whose tendency was to mute the criticism and more importantly obscure the nature of the material to which there exists universal objections. You say: “while I appreciate the value of the quotations in providing further detail on these evaluations. I'm also concerned that we try and avoid inserting our own interpretations of Firestone and her reception into the article.” This is completely convoluted and nonsensical. Quoting verbatim one is sure to avoid inserting our own interpretations. This is why I used full paragraphs only eliding redundancy for clarity. Deleting the quotations from the text and replacing them with your own words, you achieve the opposite result, especially since your words bear little relation to the material they are presented as “summarizing”. You make no acknowledgement of or reference to the bulk of the criticisms in the quoted texts you removed from the article. The brief and vague remnants of your rampage of pruning and altering significantly misrepresent the work of the living feminist scholars and theorists concerned including Firestone herself. You deleted for example Simon’s observation that Firestone’s book exhibits “insensitivity to the oppression of black women”, which I directly quoted in the article, and replaced it with a wholly different (and arguably far milder) one of “ignoring the history of black women”. Your bogus “summary” additionally suppresses Davis’ criticisms – that Firestone “facilitates the resurrection of the timeworn myth of the Black rapist” and also consequently issues “racism’s open invitation to white men to avail themselves of Black women’s bodies” -- completely. You suppressed Simon’s deploring of Firestone’s “ethnocentrism”, removing that word which is the key term in the quoted paragraph. You suppressed Simon’s concise account of Firestone’s irrational claims that “the black race” are the “children” in the “Family of Man” and “the white race” the adults and their parents. You admit that you think most people who know Firestone’s work “agree” with “these criticisms”. I am sure these are matters of fact not opinion. I hope things have not come to such a state where you live VoluntarySlave that one needs a source to confirm that the notion that “the black race” are “the children” in the “Family of Man” is both ludicrous and offensive. I can assure you that in most of the world this is entirely uncontroversial. I am going to replace my impeccably sourced and informative paragraphs and trust you will restrain any urge you have to alter them again.BelindaEdgeworth (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summarys

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that it is helpful to other editors to include an edit summary when making edits to article, particularly when they may accidently be mistaken for vandalism such as your recent edit here; [1] in which case they might be reverted. For more information on edit summary’s please have a look at WP:ES. Regards --Wintonian (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BelindaEdgeworth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)