User talk:Sugarcubez/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Talk archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Kurt Cobain

Cobain was not a vegetarian. (That is, unless you can eat Taco Bell and thin-crust pepperoni pizza - two items he counted as his "favorite take-out items" in 1993 - and still be considered a vegetarian.) Someone has taken his words out of Journals and extrapolated that he was a vegetarian - however, he was not. He tried a vegetarian diet at one point while working to diagnose his stomach condition, but he was not a practicing vegetarian for any lengthy period of time. -- ChrisB 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you can *argue* with the sources that say he was--Sugarcubez 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And to answer your question yes a vegetarian can eat at Taco Bell, it is one of the most fast food vegetarian places in the US, as wel as you can eat thin-crust pepperoni pizza without the pepperoni as wel and still be (considered) a vegetarian^[1]--Sugarcubez 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - if he was going to remove the pepperoni, why didn't he just say "cheese pizza"?

But that's not the main problem. You can't just cite a website and have it count as a source - Wikipedia guidelines are specific about that. The source you're providing fails WP:RS: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." IVO's lists are user-submitted - there is no structure for fact-checking and oversight.

The main problem with the source you're providing is that it doesn't provide his statement. I've seen the Newsweek pieces they're citing, and there's nothing there. I own Journals, and I can't find anything about him saying that he was a vegetarian. The only source I've found says that he "tried" a vegetarian diet at one point while trying to figure out a cure for his stomach problem.

WP:A is pretty clear on the matter. You need to find a source (for example, an interview) where Cobain is specifically cited as claiming that he is a vegetarian. When and if you find that, you would be able to justifiably add the content to the article. But it would need context, given his later statement.

One suggestion, however: past tense. Cobain "is" not a vegetarian - he's been dead for 13 years. -- ChrisB 03:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not my problem, sourced and reliable, where are your sources?--Sugarcubez 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The November 1993 issue of Details magazine and Heavier than Heaven by Charles Cross, both of which meet WP:RS. I've already pointed out that your source does not: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Your source doesn't have that at all. And, since it doesn't, how are we able to use its information?

And, even if your statement had a source, why put it in a paragraph about 1990? Was he a vegetarian in 1990? What does your source say? -- ChrisB 01:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Skin (musician) really belong under Skin?

I think no and Manual of Style agrees; its first sentence even has an example, War vs. War (band).

The comon sense: a link at disambiguation page is enough -- less irritation for readers. A majority of them are not fans of that musician (nor its former band) and will see the remark as completely off-topic. In other words, Dyer is not notable enough in order to form a strong association in minds of most people. What is good notability? Simply count occurences of a particular word in mass-media for a month or so. :) For example, George W. Bush could be mentioned under Bush (if the latter would link to Shrub and not to a disambiguation page). --saimhe 11:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a link to the disambiguation page is enough, because it is so far down, that it is not visible, maybe if the disambiguation page was organized better.--Sugarcubez 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sugarcubez: I reorganized skin (disambiguation) to make it easier to find music-related uses of the word. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

davidwr: Okay thank you it makes more sense now.--Sugarcubez 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Naomie Harris

Looks like we need to have a discussion about keeping the Naomie Harris article in line with the strict Wiki policy on verifiability for biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING), as regarding whether she is actually "dating" Orlando Bloom, in the ongoing manner implied by that term, or whether she has merely been "romantically linked" to him by the press. The sources you provided only verify that they went out to dinner once, and that other people say that they say they're interested in each other; there are no quotes from Harris or Bloom, and no evidence that that the one outing was more than platonic. That is why I believe that "romantically linked" is more verifiable than "currently dating." If you have a better source than the ones you provided, then please add it. If not, as the sources stand, the second citation you added doesn't even say they're together so it doesn't offer any support for the sentences whatsover, and the first citation does not support anything more than one date which can't even be proven to be romantic, much less ongoing "dating." Just because you believe this news -- even if it does turn out to be true -- your current sources don't make this sentence verifiable under Wikipedia standards (WP:VERIFY). --Melty girl 05:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick

Yeah, but saying that Dick has said some anti-Christian remarks is too, kind've. He hasn't, he has made some negative remarks to other HouseGuests because of their contrast to their behavior in the House. Don't you think Jameka (a Christian) calling Dick's, Christian, ordained minister, mom a bitch, contrast? I would. Maybe I wouldn't have said complete, but I didn't put that there. How is that stereotyping, stereotyping is, for example:

• skinny, tall girl = model.
• guy with glasses = nerd.
• blonde = stupid.

etc. Anti-Christian remarks is too harsh, and I don't think he has. He has made some negative remarks to other HouseGuests because of their contrast to their behavior in the House.

Anyway, there is already a topic about this above where you posted a talk topic about Dick, which is why I keep changing it, please read it. Melanie 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. But I will remove the anti-discrimination but there would be no attacking of one beliefs saying how you assume to know that person saying how their action contrast with their belief, you don't know them and they have not openly stated their exact beliefs just one so far I know believes in God and Jesus and the other believes in God, nothing further has been said unless you can give me proof of this, remove that part. So please try and refrain from doing so, thank you.--Sugarcubez 02:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, contrast much be included, otherwise it will be misleading. I meant that it's too harsh in the first sentence, referring to what you had said. Stop changing the contrast part. He only did it because of their behavior. Melanie 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove sources

Please do not remove sourced content as you just did at the article Vegetarianism. The source (Molecular Nutrition) says exactly what it was cited. If you have some information that challenges a source, it is always better to post a comment at the article's talk page TopTopView 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Zoë Saldaña

For clarity, did you misread my summary? I removed the qualifier "black" as I believe(d) it to be irrelevant to the article. Judging by your summary, I believe you concur...? If there is a compelling rationale for restoration, then reinsert it. SoLando (Talk) 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at your page.--Sugarcubez 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Without making an erroneous inference, I must state that the language you have employed in your response is potentially inflammatory, ill-advised and misplaced. But I digress and have no wish for an easily preventable misunderstanding to arise. For clarity: the qualifier "black" was/is present in the lead, which I believe(d) to be irrelevant unless it is given context. There was/is no context. Specify her heritage, yes, but in the main body (i.e. "Personal life" section). No one is attempting to "deny" her "race", to claim so is surely fallacy. Compare Zoë Saldaña with Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, and Colin Powell. There is an explicit context for inclusion evident in those articles. Now would you be supportive of incorporation into the aforementioned "Personal life" section? Please review WP:MoS#Identity and WP:NAMES, which are pertinent to this discussion. Regards. SoLando (Talk) 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)