User talk:Freedom Wall

Salamin, Salamin article

Can you also create the article Salamin, Salamin since it got number 4 on the billboard Philippines chart and the second viral song for BINI. Thank you. 120.28.224.48 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be good to make it as a redirect for now. I might expand it if there's more notability/references that'll show up later. :) Freedom Wall (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is to inform you that I have already created the Salamin, Salamin article after it peaked number one in Billboard Philippines. Thanks. Freedom Wall (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Simplifying "Release history" tables

Hi there. Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. However there's two other users opposed over updated table, so I suggested that change "Label" to "Distributor" column via original table. Regards. 2001:D08:2900:9309:17DE:9D5A:5F04:1052 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for removing facts that require no source for the reason that they have no source

You would not remove the fact that the General Grant and his wife are buried in Grant's tomb due to the lack of a first hand source writing that fact, so why are you trying to remove simple facts for the reason that there is no source. Gloern (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. The whole point of this archive is to provide information with verifiable sources; otherwise, anyone can add content and claim it's true. I do not know who General Grant and his wife are, but there should be a secondary source backing up where they died if it's listed down. In the first place, primary sources are heavily discouraged here.

You may check WP:Verifiability for the rules. It clearly states: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."

It also included the line: "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed."

Hopefully, this clears things up. Freedom Wall (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off I think you are ignorant of what the term primary source means in the world of historical reference. They are the MOST RELIABLE type of information, as the primary in the term refers to being written by PEOPLE INVOLVED IN IT or RELIABLE SOURCES WRITING ABOUT IT IN THE IMMEDIATE TIME OF THE EVENT. As an example, someone writing in 1874 or 1875 about Woodward and Evans work on the lightbulb is considered MORE reliable by historians than someone writing about it in a historical sense in the 1890s after Edison buying the patent or a current textbook, thus why the average person thinks Edison invented the lightbulb, but historians do not. Gloern (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is Wikipedia. I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines of how articles are written here before arguing on user talk pages. It is explicitly stated that reliable secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia as to reduce biased interpretations on primary sources. Please see WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY for your reference.

Furthermore, a good, important rule here is to assume that edits are made in good faith, which means being civil in discussions. Please do not make accusations of being "ignorant", especially as an inexperienced user. If you intend to continue making contributions to Wikipedia, you may also try familiarizing yourself with the Manual of Style to start. Thank you. Freedom Wall (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you took offense at the term ignorant, but it was being used in the sense that your wording was showing what did appear to be lacking knowledge in a subject and thus is not uncivil as there is no inherent negative quality in lacking knowledge. If the receiving party does not like being describe as such, that is regrettable, but not actually an insult. The same logic can be applied to you saying I am an inexperienced user even though I am not, but yet I don't accuse you of insulting me, even if I do take offense. Gloern (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to thank you for bring to my attention the part about primary sources since that is clearly policy that will have to be changed since it is factually incorrect and breaks with historical conventions. Gloern (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I did not take offense. I just pointed that out because the use of all caps made the tone of your message sound particularly angry. That said, I merely stated that you were an inexperienced user because you have less than 300 edits made in your contribution history, and a good portion of that was spent on user talk pages. It's generally considered for users who are not extended confirmed (min. 500 edits) to be inexperienced. I am also sorry if you took offense, but that was not meant as an insult. Users who have made thousands of edits, for instance, no longer need these rules to be pointed out. I am barely a user with experience.

If you wish to discuss policy, then I recommend you do so on the appropriate talk pages. I am simply an editor who wants to update music and sports pages. Thanks. Freedom Wall (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually doing it in the talk pages, I was not suggesting that it would be changed by saying it to you, haha. But I am thinking more clearly and wanted to point out more clearly the bad logic of your first reply. If you are trying to say that every fact has to have ideally a secondary source before it is valid to add, than the preceding sentence to what you delete has to be deleted also since there is no source given that Rose and Bruno are dancing in the video at all, so how can you reliably say that is acceptable? Oh and just to add to your general knowledge base, General Grant refers to Ulysses S Grant, the US Civil War leader and 18th President, and the reference I was making was to a fairly common redundant "factual style question" that elementary student in the US make, like "What color is the White House?" or "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?", with the later being ironically incompletely answer as just Grant, when his wife was also buried in it 17 years after he died.Gloern (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source does say that Rosé and Bruno are dancing. Please review. Ideally, every sentence does need a source. It's in the policy. Thanks. Freedom Wall (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't I have reviewed the link 15 and this is all the article says about what is in the music video "The music video released with the song was reportedly directed by Bruno Mars himself. In the music video, Bruno Mars drew attention by playing with Rosé while waving the 'Taegeukgi' flag, and also being flustered by Rosé's surprise kiss. " Gloern (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what translator you're using, but the automatic Google Translate function for me reads: "The music video, which was released along with the song, was reportedly directed by Bruno Mars himself. In the music video, Bruno Mars dances with Rosé while waving the "Taegeukgi," and he also catches the eye by being flustered by Rosé's surprise kiss." I checked this reference the moment I saw it added. To be sure, I also translated this to another language I know, and it still says dance. I don't have a problem with this reference. Freedom Wall (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I was using google too. Gloern (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Papago translation also mentions dancing. Regardless, I'm just following policy. I've been keeping track of articles to see if there have been any mentions of the Breakfast Club before that detail was even added to the MV section. I'd be glad to include it again with a source. Freedom Wall (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]