User talk:Sysiphis

Welcome!

Hello, Sysiphis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BBQboffin (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cited a video and a doctor's report on his own website. Please cite reliable secondary sources, published independently. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cite the doctor's website, I cited the John Fetterman campaign site, johnfetterman.com, who published the copy of the medical report from Dr. Clifford Chen. Is the Fetterman campaign not a reliable source of a medical report written and signed by Fetterman's own doctor?

And that video interview with Fetterman was conducted by NBC. The interviewer did not publish the interview, NBC did. NBC also published an article based on that interview. Shall I cite that instead? It contains the video embed. Excerpts from this same video interview are used in the 2022 US Senate race section of Fetterman's article. Sysiphis (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at John Fetterman, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Was my source not reliable? Sysiphis (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NBC News interview is. His website, maybe not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the letter from his doctor that was published on his website is about Fetterman himself. I believe this should be okay because WP:ABOUTSELF and it seems to meet all the requirements listed there. Sysiphis (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be seen as violating 1 (self-serving) and 2 (his doctor is a third party) of ABOUTSELF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part I cite is simply stating that he has attended speech therapy since his stroke. I fail to see how this could be self-serving, unless perhaps we believe it is sugarcoated and his treatment is much more extensive. Also, this is not a claim about a third party, it is a claim about Fetterman, which is using his doctor's letter as expert backing. At any rate, a simple attribution in the text should clear this up, no? Sysiphis (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The information from the campaign website can be seen as self-serving, as in eliciting sympathy for votes, because of the nature of the website itself, and disclosing the doctor's note is indeed a claim involving his doctor, a third party to Fetterman. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly inflammatory

You need to cut out statements like And what are you even talking about? Please pay attention. It's stunningly dishonest. They are needlessly inflammatory and only serve to make consensus and compromise more difficult to achieve. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assessment on my tone. However, that is not a complete quote. Also, suggesting that someone is not paying attention is no more inflammatory than suggesting that someone has only a surface-level understanding of something. I suggest examining whether you are only finding this fault because you disagree with my viewpoint. Happens to everyone. Sysiphis (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review my contributions to that talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]