User talk:Suraj rajiv
Susan Rosenberg[edit]
The first sentence of this article, as is standard for WP:BLP is in the present tense. Adding the "terrorist" label to the first sentence makes the statement untrue, as the article goes on to explain; Rosenberg abjured terrorism more than 25 years ago. The lede paragraph in no way whitewashes her "career" (in the 1980s) in that regard. I don't see why the assertion should be in the first sentence, nor how it can be, given the verb tense. Please respond and justify your edit. Pending your response, I will leave it for now. PDGPA (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, where in the article does it say she denounced terrorism? Suraj rajiv (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was there; I know I've read it, perhaps in her book. (I did not say "denounced," by the way; I said "abjured," as in "renounced.") But that is not the central point of my question to you. Certainly the Smithsonian article you cite (which seems to be based on the Rosenau book that is already cited) does not support a contention that Rosenberg can be described in the present tense as a "terrorist." Have you read the lengthy discussion of this issue on the article's talk page? And the same goes for your identical alteration of the first sentence in the David Gilbert article, where it is even less apt. PDGPA (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rosenberg can be described in the present tense as a terrorist just as any currently imprisoned serial killer's article begins with "...is a serial killer" despite the fact that they are not (and cannot by virtue of being imprisoned) currently killing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Ables
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo
- Additionally, whether Susan Rosenberg has 'abjured' terrorism since is irrelevant to whether she can be described as a terrorist in the present tense. Serial killers who have since abjured violence and murder are still presently referred to as serial killers, regardless of their present proclivity or ability to kill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz Suraj rajiv (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was there; I know I've read it, perhaps in her book. (I did not say "denounced," by the way; I said "abjured," as in "renounced.") But that is not the central point of my question to you. Certainly the Smithsonian article you cite (which seems to be based on the Rosenau book that is already cited) does not support a contention that Rosenberg can be described in the present tense as a "terrorist." Have you read the lengthy discussion of this issue on the article's talk page? And the same goes for your identical alteration of the first sentence in the David Gilbert article, where it is even less apt. PDGPA (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Janaury 2022[edit]
Hi Suraj rajiv! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at David Gilbert (activist) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to David Gilbert (activist). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
FDW777 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022[edit]
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I do not intend to harass anyone, the information I posted was non-identifiable and the user in question is a public figure. There appears to be serious actualCOI violations by the user, how do I go about reporting this? If there is a private channel to communicate so the user's anonymity is preserved that would be helpful. Suraj rajiv (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- You posted more than enough information for someone else to put the pieces together and determine who you believe the other user is. The rule is quite simple, if the user has not voluntarily disclosed their identity on-wiki it is harassment for anyone else to do so. If you'd like to make a report without posting personal information, WP:COIN would be the appropriate venue. If you like to submit off-wiki evidence, you can email the Arbitration Committee at [email protected]. Be sure to be specific as to why you believe the users real-life identity must be considered when doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)