Talk:Slab Fork, West Virginia

United States: West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Mid-importance).

Caucasian or white[edit]

For the most of Slab Fork inhabitants - the 'Caucasian' race is the correct mark. The 'White' is more generic and includes even Latino-Americans or those which just one parent is Caucasian.

Spylab, please, read already provided reference before claiming citations.--BarryMar 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not just for residents of Slab Fork. It should use terms that are valid worldwide. For much of the world, the word Caucasian refers to people who are from Caucasus (See Caucasian peoples and Languages of the Caucasus). Even the Caucasian race article says that Caucasian isn't simply a synonym for white people, and does include people that many Americans wouldn't consider white (i.e. "people whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, parts of North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and in certain areas of Central Asia."). The Caucasian American article says

According to one social scientist, fewer people have been using the term Caucasian American, and more people have been using the terms White American and European American. Although the term Caucasian is not used in official US government racial tallies', some independent agencies use this term as an ethnic/racial label.

Finally, Caucasian is a disambiguation page, and it is pointless to link to it within an article. Spylab 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the citation (demographics report) in the sentence we're talking about uses the term white, not Caucasian. Therefore, the wording of the sentence as it stands is not backed up by a reliable source. Spylab 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the language of government bureaucracy, here in the USA, is not an English language standard and far from obliging to anyone. Here ,the editor used the term Caucasian as given in the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries of the contemporary English language. The teams of dictionaries editors include writers, linguists, university professors, etc. ie. people whose language expertises are far above of those that might be attributed to the government bureaucracy. Respect editor's freedom to choose proper words in order to express herself correctly, please.--BarryMar 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about providing facts backed up by reliable sources. The reference uses the term white. If you can find a reliable source showing that Caucasion is the correct term, feel free to re-add it. I will revert this article to the use the term backed up by a reliable source, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Spylab 11:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is - the editor is not obliged to use strictly vocabulary of the reference. The 'reliable reference' here is not given by you nor you read or understood the reference - if you did ever read it out. The reference uses the 'white' term - but at the same time separates 'Hispanic or Latino' (of any race) from the 'white'. As per meanings of the 'Caucasian' word, as given in the dicitonaries above - the editor of this article used it correctly. Wikipedia guideline must be read and understood completely and it is not here to limit wording and the words meanings - definitely not the way you applied here. Also, here is what the Slab Fork people think who they are [1]

Here, it is not the problem of correct or of not correct term - rather it is of your attitude which includes: disrespect of other editors, not discussing rather 'justifying' your changes, not demonstrating effective knowledge - rather denying knowledge and pointing at 'rules', acting as if you have last word, as being a decision maker. That is the reason of entering into conflicts with a great number of editors (I counted at least eight of them, not including me)

The only 'contribution' of yours - to the Wikipedia - is damage. You are not providing any reference or ever reading or understanding refererences you are trampling over. One example is here, and another in the Neo-Nazism article (subsection Croatia). --BarryMar 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that there is no use to warn this person about anything bad he has already done nor he might be accountable for any editorial damages he made. He is not capable of understanding that. I've already sent a detailed report to the Wikipedia administration warning them this way about the 'quality' of Spylab 'edits'. I hope someone will read it and block his account for good. Very interesting thing I've stumbled across while writing the report about Spylab - he was supported publicly by a person who publicly admit suffering from a mental disorder!!!

Hiya, Spylab! I've never got this sort of reaction. I can only conclude that you're a better editor than I am! Keep up the good work. CWC(talk) 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris_Chittleborough

I suffer from Bipolar Disorder Type II (a Bad Thing) with an odd twist: I have never been Manic (which is a very Good Thing).--NovaNova 21:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, Wikipedia must use universal terms that are backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not just for residents of one city or one country. I have demonstrated that your edit doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy, and have provided liks to several Wikipedia articles showing why your edit is incorrect. You have not demonstrated that your edit is justified. In response to your incorrect assessment of the situation of the Neo-Nazism article, clearly do not understand what that dispute was about, and why my edits were 100 percent justified and followed Wikipedia guidelines, unlike the edits by the people who disputed my corrections. Finally, in response to your last comment, I will post the following Wikipedia template and suggest that you read up on Wikipedia guidelines: Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. -->. 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This message is for NovaNova, who seems to be incapable of stopping himself from making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors, despite countless warnings: Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --> Spylab 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf or black dogs[edit]

Strange dogs in town 174.251.136.15 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]