User talk:Gkmacca

Conflict of interest?

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Dave Allen (comedian)‎, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olney, Milton Keynes

The bit about the pronunciation of Olney is actually referenced. Twice. You have made it quite clear that you don't like the fact that some people mispronounce the name of the town, but the fact is that people do and it is a valid and verifiable piece of information. Stop removing it from the article, or next time I will start leaving you warnings for vandalism. -- role^player 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References do not, in themselves, provide confirmation of truth. Read some David Hume, you arrogant twit. People mispronounce, or mispell, many things - that isn't 'proof' that anything goes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmacca (talk • contribs)

That's fine, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. --McGeddon (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it causes so much confusion. Verifying is one thing; editorialising is another. Describing something erroneous as being acceptable is an abuse of a reader's trust. One can 'verify' all kinds of critical asserions about wikipedia, in the sense that one can find a source - that shouldn't justify presenting all of such assertions as worthy of respect. Should it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmacca (talk • contribs) 11:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both references state quite clearly that both pronunciations are acceptable. Someone has included in the article (not me by the way) that there are two ways to pronounce the town name, and two very reliable references have been provided that verify that as fact. Unless you can provide some equally verifiable references that support your point of view that the second pronunciation is wrong, then the information must be included to help retain a neutral point of view. Finally please do not call me an arrogant twit, and read Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Thank you. -- role^player 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]