User talk:Blurpeace

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Blurpeace, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! –Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open[edit]

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Cascadia[edit]

--Another Believer (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,[edit]

We'd like permission to use ticket #2012012810003054

Can you advise? Thank you!

Hi Kc255, I'm not sure I follow. I'm neither the owner of that ticket nor in a position to grant you "permission" to it. Can you please clarify what your intentions are so that I can direct you to someone more suitable? Thanks, Blurpeace 05:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your interest in the Wikisource User Group, to get things moving, Aubrey and me we were thinking of doing these tasks and hopefully you can give us a hand too :)

  • Translate this WsUG invitation (thanks to Aarti for writing it!) into the languages you know
  • The invitation is meant to be delivered to this list of wikisourcerors, check if we should add someone else!
  • Read the new version of the WsUG page, and, if you feel like, add your thoughts about what should we do as a group on the talk page.

What do you think it's the first priority as a group of wikisource users, and what would you like to see accomplished? We'd very much like to understand what wikisourcerors want :-) --Micru (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group and Community Poll[edit]

Hi Blurpeace. You receive this message because you signed the Wikisource User Group page: the User Group, as you probably know, is being evaluated by the AffCom, and they asked some questions that involve all interested users (as you are :-). Could you please take a moment to read these questions and answers for yourself? It is very important. Moreover, make sure you read and review the Wikisource community poll: we would like it to be filled in by as many users as possible, and we need really your help for that. If you want and can translate it, please write it here. Please contact us if you want to help: Wikisource is an amazing project, and it can be much more amazing if we all work together :-) Thanks! --Aubrey (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Men suck[edit]

(conversation moved from Grants:IdeaLab/Bring_positive_discrimination_to_Wikipedia)

"Men suck"? is this a serious argument? Ekips39 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is part of the reason that excellent women in society, who exceeed men, are not taken seriously. Quips like these harm their image--"women suck" would obviously be unacceptable. Sexism is never okay. If you want to promote gender-equality, it's not good to attack, without any reason, the other sex. "There are too many women," or "there are too many black people," "so, let's make it fewer of them" would also be entirely unacceptable, not to mention hilariously politically incorrect. Zaixionito (talk)
Glad I got some snappers. If you guys have any sincere interest in discussing this further ("arguing;" mind you, this is an "[e]ndorsements" and not an "arguments for this idea" section), I welcome you to settle your intellectual differences at my talk page. However, it seems highly inappropriate to carry on about whether my endorsement is legitimately grounded or not by good "argument". Blurpeace 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What a foolish statement to request intellectual discussion after stating "men suck". Killiondude (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
One non-argument cannot paint all women with the same brush unless it is interpreted by someone who thinks women are a homogeneous mass rather than individuals with different abilities -- a highly flawed interpretation, and one that does not even make sense in this context unless we can be sure whether Blurpeace is a woman (they don't seem to have disclosed that info anywhere). Ekips39 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
On a re-reading I see that w:User:Blurpeace refers to him as a "guy", so saying that he makes women look bad is definitely strange. Ekips39 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You all seem rather committed to seeing this through? The combativeness of the comments here are a little astonishing. I forget how forceful some people at the projects are toward disagreement. I suppose it's also "foolish" of me to think I'll receive anything other than the sort of response I have. I am unfortunately only one person, and I couldn't hope to take on an army in good faith. I probably won't be accepting further engagement on the subject since I've already committed my time to one person at the English Wikipedia. You all can take a look at my talk page over there if you'd like. However, I cannot promise that I will respond, even if you decide to write. Yours, Blurpeace 22:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, "Men suck", suck what? A candy?--AldNonymousBicara? 06:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an English idiomatic expression that has a couple different connotations, the most frequent being "not good". You could also substitute in "blow," as in "Men blow," and have it mean the same thing. Blurpeace 10:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I should also say that, in its idiomatic sense, the verb "to suck" is intransitive and doesn't take an object. So something can "suck" without having to suck "at something" or "on something," which is the literal meaning of the word "suck." :-) Blurpeace 10:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Tharthan's comments[edit]

You are terrible at being a compassionate, honest and good human being if you hate an entire gender. It is quite sickening to hear people say this. If you truly think that it is reasonable to hate an entire gender, then what you are doing is 100% absolutely identical to that old anti-African American attitude that was held by (and, to my chagrin, seems to still be held by) many individuals in the past.

If you truly believe what you have just said, then you are, by the very definition, sexist. In case you don't realise that what you said was sexist, let me paste these definitions of sexism here: 1. The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender. 2. Different treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender.

Therefore, what you just posted is 100% bona fide sexism, by definition. There is absolutely no way that it could be argued that it isn't, because the definition of the word clearly states that it is. So unless you are also going to claim that saying that you hate African Americans doesn't make you racist, and that eating meat doesn't stop you from being a vegetarian, don't even bother trying to claim that your blatant sexism wasn't sexist. Tharthan (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, if your aim is to simultaneously convince me that I lack compassion, honesty, and am an all-around poor human being with respect to my difference of understanding, and are also trying to change the offending understanding, your aims are in conflict. I won't be honoring this comment. Blurpeace 22:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I was hoping that you do in fact have compassion, honesty and a generally good nature, and thus could prove me wrong about that. Because otherwise, a blatantly sexist comment not being recognised as a blatantly sexist comment smacks of, well, a blantantly sexist mindset that is so close-minded that it couldn't accept the possibility of it being in error. No one is a perfect individual, and the idea that what is, by definition, something is somehow not that something, is absolutely ludicrous. Tharthan (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
What you have just espoused is simultaneously a normative and a descriptive claim. Sexists, by your definition, are bad. Blurpeace has made a sexist comment, and only sexists make sexist comments, so it follows he lacks compassion, honesty, and is an all-around poor human being. Why do you suppose that we have the same understanding of "sexism," a category that has extensive emotional and societal baggage? Why is this no better than categorically indexing any comment into a preexisting interpretive frame and venting about it to the offending writer?
I'm going to ask you to take a step back and think about your position with respect to who you're talking to, what your aims are, and how you intend to reach those ends. If you're interested in engaging for complexity, and not for flaring up with categorical rebuttals like "sexist" about a three-line endorsement I made a couple days ago, I'm willing to engage. I'm also willing to expand on the comment I made, but, as it stands, you're simply vitriolically responding to the phrase "[m]en suck" and are assuming much more about me than you know (which, I might also mention, is standard of men who group up and combatively shame others for their face-value differences). Blurpeace 22:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a gender based thing, it's something that often occurs when individuals that have their normal thinking processes pushed to the side when someone makes what they perceive as (an) egregiously backward and warped statement(s). It's not particular to any one group of people. Tharthan (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Tharthan, since you're one of the two people I've actually taken the time to respond to, I wanted to say I'm sorry that if my comment on its face offended you. It certainly wasn't meant for dialogue at the time. I don't think, however, that one justifies the other. My intention, at the time, was to respond diametrically to the opposition on that page, which later got moved. If you want a quick and funny introduction to my sort of brand of feminism, check out the center image on my user page at the English Wikipedia. Hopefully you'll find it cute. Blurpeace 23:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I wasn't much offended as I was suprised. Had I seen it elsewhere, I likely would have assumed it was either trolling or an attempt at some brand of humour.
I don't generally make impressions of people based solely on a lone interaction that I have shared with them. I also don't usually hold grudges. I try and take each new day as a clean slate as much as I can. Tharthan (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey[edit]

Inspire astrocat aqua.png

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.



Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

00:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December[edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?[edit]

IdeaLab logo dark orange.png

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results[edit]

IdeaLab badge 1.png

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We're on Twitter![edit]

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group logo.svg
Hello Blurpeace!
Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)

RachelWex (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)