User talk:Punt Admiral

May 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Temple Newsam, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. JBW (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sources added Punt Admiral (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But not indicating encyclopedic value.Pam D 06:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, it is not only supported by the verifiable information cited but also is itself noteworthy. Punt Admiral (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding content to Cambridge University Hare and Hounds which is not supported by the sources given. There is no mention of any hat, "sorcerous" or otherwise. PamD 22:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source states, "one canonical Cambridge running truth will remain unwaveringly eternal: coach Phil O’Dell, is magic." At face value the word "truth" implies a fact. The impact that a coach has on the performance of their athletes is a given - and the mention of the coach in a positive context in the article suggest a causal link between the coach and the success of the athletes at the BUCS event. "sorcerous" is a synonym for "magic." Magic need not indicate supernatural but might simply hint at an ephemeral quality. The source depicts no less than three hats in the image. Athletic performance is linked to the quality of equipment athletes have at their disposal. It is a fact that these athletes were wearing these hats (per the image) and that they had success. Athlete testimony, which the writer of the article would have sought, would verify the causal link between headwear and performance. With respect, to suggest that the content is not supported by the source given, a reputable and long-standing official publication, is mistaken. Punt Admiral (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing. PamD 04:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Please identify specifically what part of this explanation of how the source supports the content is not convincing rather than indiscriminately rejecting the content. Punt Admiral (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As Punt Admiral understands it, Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Where the addition was a link in the see also section to the miniseries about the 2008 Iditarod race, a summary would have been longer than the change itself - outrageously burdensome. If more significant, rest assured a summary would be included! Punt Admiral (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at St Edmund's College, Cambridge, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. There is no compulsion to add sources. Before removing edits, one ought to assume the edits are made in good faith and seek to add sources or add a citation needed tag. To remove information that is factually accurate and of encyclopaedic value, as @Magnolia677 should be discouraged. Punt Admiral (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to read WP:BURDEN. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

touché. please take a moment to read WP:NOTREQUIRED and note that WP:OPTIONAL refers to sources being required for ARTICLES - not additions to an article. Punt Admiral (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page states, "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Thanks! Punt Admiral (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I offer you the following pieces of advice, in the hope that they may be helpful to you.

You have found an "essay" (i.e. a page which one or more editors have created to express their personal opinions on a particular issue) which mentions that articles need to have references but which does not mention the need for facts added to articles to have references. That doesn't mean that there is no such requirement: it just means that the authors of that essay didn't mention it.
"Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish" doesn't mean that if someone chooses to put time in then they are free to do so without complying with Wikipedia policies.
Your account has existed for 4 days, and has made 29 edits. You may like to consider whether it is a good idea for you to try to lecture editors on Wikipedia policies who have been here for time periods varying from 11 years to 18 years, and who each have made numbers of edits ranging from 132,000 to 200,000; perhaps they may have a better knowledge of policies than you have. Your time on Wikipedia is likely to be more successful if you are willing to learn from experienced editors than if not.
I see that you have again edited in a way which appears to be contrary to the conflict of interest guideline, after being informed of that guideline. I advise you not to do so; if you do, there's a likelihood that you may be blocked from editing by an administrator. You need to be careful about that. JBW (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

I see that at Talk:Cambridge University Hare and Hounds you have mentioned what you call "the threat of @PamD's willingness to engage in edit-warring". That clearly indicates that you are aware of the concept of edit-warring, and suggests that you may be aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, but if not then in view of the following edits: [1], [2], [3], [4] you need to read it; here is a link to it: Wikipedia:Edit warring. Please bear in mind that any editor who edit-wars may be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline on "conflict of interest"

Hello, Punt Admiral. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. JBW (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query: would it not be the case that the people with the most expertise on a subject matter are likely to be the subject matter, their family, friends, colleagues, etc? By asking that those people avoid editing or creating articles are you not risking losing valuable encyclopaedic information? Punt Admiral (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors with subject expertise and a conflict of interest are welcome to post in an article's talk page to suggest improvements, giving reliable independent published sources for their suggestions. PamD 13:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]