User talk:A Rainbow Footing It

March 2024

We never do this. First we discuss, giving other editors a chance to opine, then we can make changes after consensus is reached. Consensus is reached through discussions on talk pages, preferably without too much personal stuff, not by POV in edit summaries. Please never do anything like that again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

Hi there. In regards to the removal of the Cape Romano pyramid house photograph, what makes a verified news website an unreliable source? Wikipedia directly draws from these for information in many cases. If a regular news site isn’t reputable, then what is? SavagePanda845 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I pressed the wrong talk page link. Please disregard. SavagePanda845 (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, SavagePanda845! Thanks for your hard work. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cannabis (drug), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian language. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames article - Hoym Ordinance edit

Hi, I've re-added my edit about the Hoym Ordinance, which you replaced with a book citation about 1905 Warsaw. I'm assuming that your reference relates to later Prussian Legislation mandating Jews adopt surnames but over 100 years after the Hoym Ordinance? Duncnbiscuit (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Duncnbiscuit: my humble apologies. I must have mistakenly added the wrong citation to that section. In my personal edit-a-thons, I can sometimes have over 100 tabs running, and sometimes my judgment fails me. Thanks for paying close attention and being a part of what makes this platform so great. - A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources given for cannabis

If the new age books indeed have good sourcing, then source that material instead, "as cited in". Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommygunn7886: the "New Age" books themselves are reliable sources. Furthermore, being WP:SECONDARY makes them even superior to the source material they quote/cite. Anything published in the University of Pennsylvania Press or Simon and Schuster is reliable, period. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondary sources" titled "Cannabis and Spirituality: An Explorer's Guide to an Ancient Plant Spirit Ally" and "Seeking the Sacred with Psychoactive Substances: Chemical Paths to Spirituality and to God" are actually more credible than primary sources straight from an academic linguist? What in the gaslighting did I just read right now. You are so cooked bro. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommygunn7886: it doesn't matter what you think about the book's title. The book is published in a reliable source and cites subject matter experts. Don't edit war again or you're going to get banned. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never edit warred, an edit war requires three separate edits on the same post, which if you look I did not do. Now stop trying to give little passive aggressive threats, the sources you gave were not credible, if they were cite the source material they cited. Or is there no citation given in the book?? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a source being published in Simon and Schuster doesn't make it an academic source, who ever claimed that? Is Simon and Schuster a peer reviewed journal? No, it is a book publisher, authors are able to publish works with their own opinions and theories in them, even if they are not academic.

Here is a list of fiction books published by Simon and Schuster, or academic works for for citation, as you would put it.

https://www.simonandschuster.com/search/books/Category-Fiction/New-Releases/_/N-g1hZi7p/Ne-ffk Tommygunn7886 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommygunn7886: you did edit war at both articles. The three revert rule is just when your behavior becomes actionable and results in a ban. Simon and Schuster *is* peer reviewed and this is not a fictional book. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Schuster is not peer reviewed. Stop the gaslighting. Also you yourself admitted that an edit war is only bannable when it is 3 reverts, which I did not do. Also I could say YOU did three reverts on the page for eye color because you changed the map more than 3 times yourself, but I'm not going to whine to an administrator about it. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/books

Popular Press

As the name suggests, popular presses sell popular books; books meant to entertain. Even when they publish non-fiction books, they generally are not considered scholarly, because their audience is the general public. Like academic presses, they employ people to review and edit books before they are published. But their books are not peer reviewed and generally are not considered scholarly.

Examples: Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, etc.

Now could you stop lying? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Etymology of cannabis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]