User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee

Fredo

@Robbie SWE Completely unfounded block. See Chris Cuomo and Fredo Corleone on the English Wikipedia, both had to be protected for edits such as this from recent news. One instance does not make it a definition. Review this please, and unblock me, and remove these comments from Fredo. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee, just because the subject is a current event in US politics doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. the term "Fredo" is attested in a pejorative sense back to at least 2003 based on my very cursory glance at GBC, but regardless it's fun to edit topical subjects on wiki so long as they meet CFI. feel free to take the entry to RFV or RFD if you disagree. --Habst (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Source other than from yesterday's events solely based on one man's opinion? This has no place here and will be removed per RECENTISM, Notability, OR and BRD. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@DTLHS Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Give it a rest – we have sources predating recent events and I'm sure Habst, or any other user, would be able to find more if needed. Have a problem with it? Open a discussion at RFV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE Give it a rest? The sources listed do not substantiate the claims that it is a slur. "would be able to find more if needed" this statement is coming from an admin? We go by sources, and none listed claim it is a slur, other than yesterday's recentism events and opinion of one man. Articles at en.wiki had to be protected for this sort of implementation. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee unlike Wikipedia which prides itself on secondary sources, at Wiktionary here we aim to be descriptive, meaning that if a term is in widespread use, it should be included here, regardless of whether or not it makes it to formal academic discourse or high-class journalism. the fact that it's being discussed so much now is only further reason why it should be included. even if it were not previously attested (which it clearly is), we have templates like {{hot word}} for a reason. to be clear if that one revert was the only thing you did wrong i wouldn't have blocked you for that alone, but once it expires tomorrow or if it is overturned you are still free to nominate it for deletion or verification through the normal channels, and i don't think you're helping your cause here by pinging other admins and being aggressive. --Habst (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Habst The two sources you listed do not provide claim that it is an ethnic slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@DTLHS Thanks for removing the claim claiming it is a slur. "especially of a person of Italian origin" should also be removed as none of the sources provide claim it is used especially in reference to italians [1] [2]. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Habst And he adds it back....[your source https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/13/chris-cuomo-fredo-video-sparks-debate-fredo-ethnic-slur/1995997001/] is one man's opinion said in the heat of the moment and completely unfounded. That is no where near enough evidence to say that this is an slur against Italians. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee, the reference i included at the bottom shows that some people consider it to be an ethnic slur. as this is a current event and i created the entry only a few minutes ago, the definition is a work in progress and i am working on adding additional references and quotations to prove this point, they do exist. --Habst (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is claiming that Fredo is a slur in that source, just a whole lot of speculation and people wondering if it really is because of this event, but can't find historical sources that claim it really is. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

i think you are arguing as if this was wikipedia. wiktionary is very different than wikipedia and many of the wikipedia policies you cited above do not apply here. "historical sources" are not necessarily needed to cite content here -- even if the pejorative / ethnic slur sense originated today (which, to be clear, it definitely has not) it would still deserve to be documented here if its use was widespread enough as we describe what is rather than waiting for secondary sources to define words for us like they do at Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Habst It is talked a lot about right now because of one person's opinion, it isn't widespread in its use, just in its speculation and reporting from one person, no news source is agreeing that it is a slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If that were true, then RFV would not be a thing. We need verification. If wikitionary can go off of opinions instead of verification that is sad and very dangerous. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

seeing as the united states president shared the claim and it has been covered by multiple major news outlets already in just a few hours, it is widespread. per TMZ, "A CNN spokesperson tells us, 'Chris defended himself when he was verbally attacked with the use of an ethnic slur in an orchestrated setup. We completely support him.'" so several news sources including CNN agree that it was used as a slur. --Habst (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Habst That is poor journalism at its finest. They have provided no evidence that it is an ethnic slur, they are just going along with the opinion of one man, Cuomo. The president disagrees with his claim as it being a slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

first of all the tweet you linked is from the president's son, not the president himself. if you want to bring up credibility of sources, DJT Jr. has been linked to a number of lies as he tends to say what is politically convenient (in this case targeting a liberal news anchor) without regard for truth. i agree that wiktionary should reflect this controversy somehow, perhaps in a "usage notes" section after the dust settles on the current event. --Habst (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoever it is, I’m not basing my position from what the president or his son say, as that is just another opinion, I’m basing it from the sources as I have been. But it is curious because if it is really a slur why didn’t he get furious when it was said there. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, the block seemed pretty reasonable. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@AryamanA Pretty reasonable for one edit with sound claims shared by another user as well? One more edit to try and reason with him with the his own sources provided, then backed off as it was taken to RFV, so I guess we'll wait while this dangerous unfounded information spreads. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Oh no, descriptive linguistics in action, the horror!" Sending it to RFV is the correct action to take if it seems spurious, not nuking the page. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Still not block worthy with no discussion and no policy stated. Can't believe that is coming from an admin. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Blocking policy WT:CFI —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

We have far fewer admins than Wikipedia and no automatic patrolling bots, so we don't really have the luxury of allowing a strict bureaucratic warning system that slowly escalates to a block. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@AryamanA "It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed." None of which was taken. No excuse. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oy vey, I'm starting to doubt the unblocking too. You've really let this quite simple RFV issue spiral out of control. If anything, you've put Fredo in the minds and hearts of every user tonight. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, discussion is what Wiki is all about. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What's the policy I'm breaking? No edit warring, just one edit to remove something I thought was inaccurate and misleading, then one edit after with some claims, then I stopped. Then RFV was taken. Do you not want discussion to take place? If anything, it look like you went against policy "It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed." Just looks like some admins abusing their tools. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please calm down a bit, V. RFV discussions can run for weeks and we will all go insane if you post at this frequency during the whole thing. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox I understand what you're saying, but people keep responding to me here, so what do you want me to do, not reply? I will reply. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You arbitrarily nuked a section of an entry which had valid citations. It looked like vandalism to me and I had a hunch that you were going to initiate an editing war instead of going through the proper channels. As I said, my block was a bit harsh and I revoked it in a matter of minutes. However, you went and did exactly what I feared you would do, so I'm starting to think that a short term block was warranted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE I went back once to see if this edit would be enough to see if he wouldn't add it back, using reason. It was put back and I stayed off. That is not an edit war. I've also been discussing throughout this entire thing. If you actually looked into it, and read my summary, you wouldn't think it was vandalism. None of the sources substantiate the claim that it is an ethnic slur or aimed especially against Italians. I don't know how it can't be more clear. As of now, it is mere speculation and the dust should settle before it is added. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you aren't letting "the dust settle". If something you disagree with is in an entry for a while, don't panic: a discussion is taking place, and it will reach a conclusion (based on evidence, hopefully, not on who posts how often). Just use a bit of patience. You can post your opinion once in the right place and it will get its due attention. You don't have to write the same thing every time someone posts anywhere. Equinox ◑ 06:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)