User talk:Manntis

List of common misconceptions:Vegan/diet

Hi, I undid your recent edit to List of common misconceptions, as it was not supported by a source and is at variance with the other sources tied to the item. If you can provide a reliable source to back up your claim, please bring it forward on the article's talk page as this would be very interesting: It would probably mean that it could no longer be claimed that it is a "misconception" that vegan diets provide insufficient protein. But without sources, the item stays unchanged. Dr bab (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm adding a section on airline air quality claims made, with references, yet you keep deleting them and your complaints above are completely unrelated to anything I added. Manntis (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've explained below, you'll be blocked if you add it again without a 3rd party source that meets WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Candy Crush Saga, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I made the mistake of hitting publish instead of preview while still verifying the 3rd party links. In the seconds it took me to go back to fix them you'd already deleted my entry. I republished it complete with corrected links and deleted the Talk section where you'd complained there were no 3rd party links as it was no longer relevant. I didn't realise that breached a protocol, as in the years I've been here no one has mentioned it. I apologise. --Manntis

No worries, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material

Unlike some of her other pseudoscience statements, her now-retracted statement on air travel has not been covered in a third-party reliable source, and as such violates policy. If you continue to re-add it, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I keep adding it WITH SOURCED MATERIAL but you immediately delete it seconds later. Manntis (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please take a few moments to understand the difference between WP:PRIMARY and third-party sources. Also see WP:SYNTH and original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're deleting my revisions so fast there's no way you're actually checking the sources I'm citing. Stop censoring.Manntis (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)...and now you've blocked me from making any edits to the whole of Wikipedia. Nice bias. Manntis (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie mentioned the lack of third party sources twice. You can't just summarize a blog post, refute its statements, and cite just the blog, especially when using a phrase like "When several aviators, engineers, and scientists" without citing who those critics are. Also, edit warring (WP:WAR) isn't an effective way to improve an article. If there's disagreement about content, leave it out until things have been settled on the talk page. Pcwendland (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, apparently I'm a "censoring fuckhead." You are still failing to read the links (WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR) in the numerous warnings I've given you. The article already has good examples of third-party reliable source criticism regarding Hari's pseudoscience claims. You've failed to provide such sourcing for the air travel content you repeatedly tried to add, without bothering to read the warnings. Other people on FB are trying to patiently explain to you how Wikipedia works. Now you have three days to figure it out. If after three days you try to re-add improperly sourced content, you'll be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's right. Stalk me on Facebook to drag more into here, cherrypick the things you want to cry about, and leave out the rest. Get a grip. Manntis (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If the material is not covered by better sources, then it's insignificant and doesn't need to be included. The article isn't supposed to be a free-for-all debunking page containing your own arguments, but an encyclopedic summary of better sources that directly address the material. The material you added is better suited to general pages about air travel, not this biography of a living person. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

They aren't my own arguments; they're the arguments of the Smithsonian, or Science.com, and of pilots and other aviators based on date, physics, and real world procedures. When the "living person" is a self-proclaimed expert who "researches" and "informs" the public, it's in the public interest to know when that person's information is shown to be wrong. Manntis (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If Smithsonian or Science.com specifically mention Vani Hari and her pseudoscientific theories, and if they explain why they are or should be discredited, you are welcome to cite them here. However, citing facts from these sources in an article here in an effort to prove your theories about Vani Hari, when the sources do not mention her at all in the cited articles, is called synthesis and is not permissible. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So if someone has said "The sky is plaid" and it's discussed on their bio page, you can't discuss the controversy over their statement and link to a source demonstrating the sky is not plaid because it doesn't mention that person specifically? Your bar for sources is pretty messed up.Manntis (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply: You cannot say "Numerous scientists and interior decorators have criticized [someone] for their claim that the sky is plaid" and then only link to articles that state the sky is blue, but that never mention the someone who is the subject of the article or the fact that they claimed it was plaid, because those references do not support the contention that numerous scientists/decorators have taken a position on "someone's" claim and criticized it. Nor can you say "[Someone] is wrong when they claim the sky is plaid" using only the same refs to affirm that the sky is blue, because then you are using them to support your contention that "someone" is wrong, and as Wikipedia editors we are not permitted to advance our personal views or beliefs, only the views of reliable sources. You may find it limiting, but it's that limitation that prevents (or at least is intended to prevent) Wikipedia from being just a great stew-pot of conjecture and personal opinion. (By the way, please help keep Talk pages readable by using indentation properly. Thanks.) Dwpaul ^Talk 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What you can do is this: "[Someone] claimed that the sky is plaid.<cite><cite><cite> Scientists generally agree that the sky is blue.<cite><cite<cite>" However, your citations concerning the scientists must document as a fact that a majority of scientists agree on this question, not just discuss blue skies or contain a single scientist's opinion or small number of scientists' opinions that the sky is not plaid, because those refs would not support your assertion. And you cannot follow this with "This means that [someone] is wrong." because, though logical (and correct), that is your inference, not the sources'. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dwpaul. That was a helpful explanation. Manntis (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)