User talk:CeltBrowne

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles the Troubles discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Hi CeltBrowne, hope alls well. I was wondering if the image of Martin McGuinness on his wiki page could be changed to a better image, perhaps outside of his illness? The current image is a few months before he passed, and may cause some hurt to his family. Thank you. 2001:BB6:BF65:DC00:37:D0A3:2BC1:3FEC (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CeltBrowne (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are brilliant. Thank you, take care! 2001:BB6:BF65:DC00:37:D0A3:2BC1:3FEC (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edits on Destiny's page? How did I violate neutrality when I only provided trustworthy sources discussing what Destiny himself has said? Destiny's support for Zionism and his positions on the ongoing genocide are documented and notable, and go above merely "showing sympathy". They are part of his recent political views besides his social democracy, since they are distinct from his other political positions. The article is not neutral, it violates neutrality because you knowingly omit that he has defended and consistently shown support for Israel since the genocide began, and it attempts to dress up Destiny's BS in nicer language.

Why are we so interested in whitewashing Destiny's zionism? If you engage with nothing else I have to say, maybe ponder that.

This line in particular is egregious.

"He has shown sympathy for Israel, stating, "The Palestinians are oppressed by all the Arab countries, and no country from them, which is supposed to be on 'their' side, has bothered to offer them a real solution — and yet, their anger is directed fully at Israel, and unjustifiably in my opinion."

It is clear that Destiny is not merely in "sympathy" with Israel nor merely "interested" in the conflict lmfao. Also seems to be providing defense for Destiny's takes. He has made a number of statements on Israel. Why highlight this one in particular? Is it because the editor themself subscribes to this belief and wants to inject this point about where Palestinian anger should be directed to into the article? Notice that in my edits, I did not divulge into specific statements Destiny has made, even though it is documented that he has mocked Refat Alareer's death, joked that he is pro-genocide, and denied that Palestinians are starving in Gaza.

This is why I removed the Israeli source - though, it itself can be used to cite Destiny's support for Israel and Zionism. In any case my removal of the source alone is not enough to remove the entire edit.

This next line is also disgusting, it's clearly an attempt to defend Destiny's BS. Do you actually think this is neutral?? There is no need to "dress up" his positions. He supports Israel. He doesn't support the right of return. He argues against the apartheid and genocide accusations. That is concise and sourced.

"Bonnell has argued against the Palestinian right of return, believing it would make peace and a two-state solution impossible."

For what it's worth this is what the article cited for this line has to say about that: "One of Bonnell’s main counterarguments was that Palestinians would hold up any such deal by insisting on a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees from the ethnic cleansing carried out by Israeli forces during Israel’s “War of Independence” in 1948 — an event Palestinians call the “Nakba” (catastrophe). Bonnell portrayed this as an obviously absurd demand which would make peace impossible. After all, allowing millions of Palestinians to migrate back to Israel would completely change the demographic composition of the country. In response, Robinson argued that Palestinian negotiators would quite likely be willing to compromise on this point."

So it's okay to discuss something the article refers to in passing, but it would be forbidden for you to remark upon literally anything else that the article talks about.

So it's okay to discuss specific statements Destiny has made, but not his statements on mocking Refat Alareer's death, joking on-stream that he is pro-genocide and that Palestinians should "go live somewhere else", denying Israeli apartheid, denying that Palestinians are starving in Gaza, etc.

And for what it's worth my edits were three concise sentences. "Destiny supports Israel .. Destiny argued (Israeli talking points) ... Destiny took the pro-Israel side on the Lex Fridman debate". But that violates neutrality to you. You have only violated yourself.

Unless we are fair and as thorough as we can with providing encyclopedic, sourced, neutral, and noteworthy information on Mr. Mor- Mr. Bonnell, I swear before god I WILL escalate. Wikipedious1 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies, if you have time of course, I'd appreciate if you are able to help settle this matter. This is my revision in contention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destiny_(streamer)&oldid=1246465691

Which the Celt entity claims violates NPOV, though I believe it is sourced and sticks to the facts. Wikipedious1 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss edits to a specific article, please do so on that article's talk page, where other people who have also edited the page can see and participate. This is beneficial for building consensus. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really understand, Wikipedious1, why you called me in here--I don't watch streaming stuff, and I have very little interest in online personalities and all that comes with it. I have an interest in the BLP, but is there anything really alarming here? CeltBrowne has a point: this is a content discussion that belongs on the article talk page, and this is not yet the stage, I think, that calls for admin intervention. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I'll ping you when it's appropriate. Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming MSN articles are AI generated as a means of discrediting the article is a baseless claim made by you. An article doesn't need to include explicit verbiage of "far left" for the subject to be deemed "far left". His own words have demonstrated him to be far left. – Brenr 18:12, September 21, 2024 (UTC) 18:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To really reinforce the premise, his extreme rhetoric was the cause for his ban from Kick as well as demonetization on X. – Brenr 18:14, September 21, 2024 (UTC)

A RS DOES need to include explicit verbiage of "far left" for us to describe the subject as "far left". That you haven't found such sources yet means you should drop this matter completely before you get blocked and topic banned from politics, which is just about a hair's breadth away. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for uploading AEW images. The quality is very good. Do you want to upload more images? Because articles like Athena, Billie Starkz, Hikaru Shida, and some others need better infobox images too. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mann Mann,

I don't have unlimited access to AEW photography, the situation is more that I can get a decent amount on occasion. Secondly, I think it's good to have a diversity of sources and that we continue to encourage independent photographers to contribute; being dependent on one source is putting our eggs all in one basket, and often times Independent photographers are able to create much more vivid images than ones in front of a backdrop. Thirdly, I actuality think pages like Billie Starkz and Hikaru Shida have fantastic main images currently, I don't think they need to be replaced. Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keffals. Citing The Young Turks for the claim that someone was or was not victim to domestic violence or may or may not have comitted fraud is a gross WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources before the edit; there was no discussion of The Young Turks one way or around to cross-reference. It was not a feckless edit made with no concern for BLP rules. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP states that material must be sourced to reliable sources. For the future, if a source isn't listed on WP:RSP, and isn't mentioned in the noticeboard archives to any real extent, that's not necessarily an endorsement, it just means nobody has taken a proper look at it yet and discussed the results. RSP just lists the sources that come up a lot. Additionally, a claim like the one made by the young Turks there requires extremely strong sourcing, because it's a really strong claim, one that borders on being slander if it turns out not to be true, even. For that kind of claim we want to see at least some seriously reliable secondary sources picking it up before we can repeat it. If no (solid) secondary sources picked it up, assume Wikipedia won't want to either. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please note I reverted your edit on Altamont Free Concert. You seem to have removed the majority of the page, including the short description, info box, plenty of sourced content - was this a mistake? OXYLYPSE (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've now noted in another edit, the edit was affected by a browser glitch/my browser freezing. What should have been an "edit section" edit became the entire article. Thank you for correcting it. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, just saw the edit description :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]