User talk:Mac520
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Mac520, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! All is One (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Concerns
[edit]Hello, thank you for your inquiries concerning my edits to the Scrappage program article. However, I moved your message from User talk:All Is One to Talk:Scrappage program#Reverted edits for community viewpoints. Please respond there for further discussion. Thank you. All is One (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
An IP removed part of your section again. I was reading through the history and it seems there have been disagreements over including this.
This time it was over attribution. The source should go after what you are citing.
I'm not sure what you said should even be there, but I'll leave that for others to decide. If it is there, maybe there should be more detail and clear sources.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is to let you know that I reverse your deletion of the safety section in the CARS article. I suggest you review WP:RS and WP:OR. Even if you and I disagree or do not trust him, or even believe he is lying, that is not relevant at Wiki, what the NHTSA guy said, what he said is official, and Yahoo News is a reliable source, so please stop your bold edits. Wiki is an encyclopia, not a blog. There is plenty of criticism out there about the program, just follow the rules of the game.
- There are a couple of references already in the article with plenty of criticism. See also A Clunker of a Programand Unintended Consequences of Clunkers Law, Doing the ‘Clunker’ Calculus, Mom and Pop Used-Car Dealers Left Without Clunkers and particularly 5 Downsides to 'Cash for Clunkers'.-Mariordo (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, please keep the discussion in one place, I will answer to you here. You are completely wrong about what Wikipedia is about, but certainly not to bring the truth to light, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and not place to develop your WP:OR. Read Wiki policies.-Mariordo (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not original research. You can clearly find articles already about the subjects here on Wikipedia. I am merely linking to them. Just because no one else has made the connection yet does not make it a false connection. Anyone with an once of common sense can see the logic in the things that I have written. I was reverted for saying the funds appropriated to the program had an opportunity cost, and this was reverted as a OR, even though it is quote obvious that any spending by definition has an opportunity cost, and it was not supposed to be a remarkable controversial statement. But since those reverting my edits don't have any knowledge about basic economic principles, they thought I was saying something remarkable and controversial, and so they reverted it. All spending by definition has an opportunity cost -- it's a fact, not one up to dispute. Mac520 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, please keep the discussion in one place, I will answer to you here. You are completely wrong about what Wikipedia is about, but certainly not to bring the truth to light, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and not place to develop your WP:OR. Read Wiki policies.-Mariordo (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are a couple of references already in the article with plenty of criticism. See also A Clunker of a Programand Unintended Consequences of Clunkers Law, Doing the ‘Clunker’ Calculus, Mom and Pop Used-Car Dealers Left Without Clunkers and particularly 5 Downsides to 'Cash for Clunkers'.-Mariordo (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at William Holden. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This edit summary is completely inappropriate. There are a LOT of editors who would love nothing better than to only have to be concerned with working on articles, except vandalism and edits by persons such as yourself that do not understand policy, take away too much of our time. Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, it is not acceptable under WP:RS to use one encyclopedia to source another one. Please focus a bit on learning about proper sources and a little less on just making changes without understanding the policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not attack another user. I disagreed with the content of his edit; I said nothing his character. I am the one who wants to be concerned only with working on articles; it was the other user who vandalized the article by reverting my good edit. You are lecturing (or should I say personally attacking?) the wrong person. What's more, encyclopedias CAN be used as sources: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries". What's even more, I didn't add any new information with my edit--I only revised what was already written to more concise English--so I didn't even need to add a source to support my edits. I added a source because I was trying to verify the information that was already there.Mac520 (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, stating "How about instead of reverting other people's edits, you do something productive yourself" is attacking the other editor. That is a long established fact on Wikipedia. Suggesting that the reversion of your edit is vandalism also falls under an attack statement. Regardless, you did not just copy edit the paragraph. You changed the sourced statement that there was a rumor about lung cancer to flatly state it was a diagnosis. That's not what the source said. It said it was a rumor. You are changing the wording, not to improve the language, but instead to state as known facts something that was not, and is not, known, but only surmised by investigators and the forensics from the death site. It is not known for certain that he slipped on a rug, it is concluded from the evidence. It is not known for certain that he was conscious for a 1/2 hour after falling, it is concluded from the evidence. It is not known for certain when he died, but evidence suggests it. You are changing all of this to state unequivocably that this is fact. That can't be done given the evidence. Finally, encyclopedias might be used for overviews or summaries, but not to change wording that makes evidentiary conclusions known facts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I care about trimming bloated paragraphs to deliver information clearly and quickly to the reader. No fact can be 100% certain. Everything is a result of "evidence" or "conclusions" or "expert opinions". It is wordy to qualify the truth of every fact. It is more clear and direct to state it. Then, if the reader doubts, he can look at the source himself. Why not add more qualifiers to everything else that is plainly stated as a fact? Don't dance around the facts, state them with confidence. Mac520 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because in this case, it is not possible to source that these facts are absolute. All that exists are the conclusions reached by investigators into the death. When you change the wording to eliminate that fact, you are claiming this is absolute when it is not. That is deceptive in content. As I said, you cannot state unequivocably that Holden was conscious, you cannot state unequivocably that he slipped on a rug, you cannot state unequivocably that any of this is positively true. It is incumbent upon the person making the changes to clearly support the changes that are made. You can't do that in the case of the death of William Holden, unless of course, you were there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- At first, I tried condensing the paragraph because I'm practicing my editing skills on Wikipedia after reading Elements of Style. I understand the need for qualifiers, but it looks like WP:Weasel Words. Are you sure the current wording of the paragraph the best way to express that information? Mac520 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because the wording reflects what the actual sources state. Weasel words don't apply here, mostly because it is ambiguous about what factually happened. We're reporting what the official investigation concluded, and we are saying specifically that. There was no one in attendance at his death and therefore, all that can be known conclusively is that the official investigation drew those conclusions based on the evidence at the scene. That is what is being said here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope that my most recent edit of William Holden is acceptable. Mac520 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because the wording reflects what the actual sources state. Weasel words don't apply here, mostly because it is ambiguous about what factually happened. We're reporting what the official investigation concluded, and we are saying specifically that. There was no one in attendance at his death and therefore, all that can be known conclusively is that the official investigation drew those conclusions based on the evidence at the scene. That is what is being said here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- At first, I tried condensing the paragraph because I'm practicing my editing skills on Wikipedia after reading Elements of Style. I understand the need for qualifiers, but it looks like WP:Weasel Words. Are you sure the current wording of the paragraph the best way to express that information? Mac520 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because in this case, it is not possible to source that these facts are absolute. All that exists are the conclusions reached by investigators into the death. When you change the wording to eliminate that fact, you are claiming this is absolute when it is not. That is deceptive in content. As I said, you cannot state unequivocably that Holden was conscious, you cannot state unequivocably that he slipped on a rug, you cannot state unequivocably that any of this is positively true. It is incumbent upon the person making the changes to clearly support the changes that are made. You can't do that in the case of the death of William Holden, unless of course, you were there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I care about trimming bloated paragraphs to deliver information clearly and quickly to the reader. No fact can be 100% certain. Everything is a result of "evidence" or "conclusions" or "expert opinions". It is wordy to qualify the truth of every fact. It is more clear and direct to state it. Then, if the reader doubts, he can look at the source himself. Why not add more qualifiers to everything else that is plainly stated as a fact? Don't dance around the facts, state them with confidence. Mac520 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, stating "How about instead of reverting other people's edits, you do something productive yourself" is attacking the other editor. That is a long established fact on Wikipedia. Suggesting that the reversion of your edit is vandalism also falls under an attack statement. Regardless, you did not just copy edit the paragraph. You changed the sourced statement that there was a rumor about lung cancer to flatly state it was a diagnosis. That's not what the source said. It said it was a rumor. You are changing the wording, not to improve the language, but instead to state as known facts something that was not, and is not, known, but only surmised by investigators and the forensics from the death site. It is not known for certain that he slipped on a rug, it is concluded from the evidence. It is not known for certain that he was conscious for a 1/2 hour after falling, it is concluded from the evidence. It is not known for certain when he died, but evidence suggests it. You are changing all of this to state unequivocably that this is fact. That can't be done given the evidence. Finally, encyclopedias might be used for overviews or summaries, but not to change wording that makes evidentiary conclusions known facts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It was fine. I did, however, remove the addition someone else made outlining "best known" or "memorable" films. That's entirely POV. What is best known or memorable to one person isn't particularly the same for the next person. But yours was fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think the introduction is not informative enough without listing his most notable films, as in the Charlton Heston article? Mac520 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do think the lead section could be vastly improved. However, don't use another B-class article to gauge how a lead should be written. Look at featured articles. I'd recommend Angelina Jolie or Bette Davis as a guide. It's not really neutral to list films as "best known", "memorable", or "most notable". It would also help considerably to read WP:LEAD for a guideline on how leads should be written. Hope that helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"Vandalism"
[edit]Removal of a section you've added, especially one like Criticism, does not constitute "vandalism", as you mentioned in your revert comments for Honda Insight edits. If you disagree that your section doesn't belong there, discuss it on the Talk:Honda Insight page. --Vossanova o< 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have reverted this section as well. Please discuss before reverting again. Thank! roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Overlinking? Your thoughts
[edit]Hi Mac520,
I value your opinion. The Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) has something to say about "overlinking" versus "underlinking", and I'd welcome your thoughts on the "Overlink crisis" essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis - see what you think. I'm a believer in the idea that excessively crowded irrelevant links and links that merely define the meaning of words in the English language serve to clutter an article and make it less accessible. I don't believe that I have got the balance right myself, as more detailed guidance in the MOS is needed. Certainly group discussion would be very helpful. Very best wishes. CecilWard (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines
[edit]Editing against growing consensus
[edit]Mac, I missed your comment about reinstating the quotes unless a better argument is made. Again, you need to build to a consensus to do this and right now, it seems the consensus (which I'm counting 4 editors to 1) is against the edit. Ignoring the discussion and all editors involved by simply reinserting the text could be viewed as a bad faith act and even vandalism and can lead to warnings and temporary bans by admins. Just something to keep in mind. Work with the other editors and not against them and supply real policies and guidelines to support your arguments. Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed your addition to healthy diet. This is not supported by any major organization / research looking at hard endpoints. Therefore it does not belong as a healthy diet. Cheers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Look outside of major organizations: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ A doctor such as yourself should be interested in such information. One is even a doctor like yourself. Mac520 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:MEDRS for referencing requirements. Review articles are preferred but statement by major governmental organizations are good as well. The World Health Organization is very good. And in science one must show that info is "potentially better" before it is accepted as such.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
AN/I notification
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Minor edits
[edit] Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)