User talk:Vindafarna

May 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Thor, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted. Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu :Since I guess you got tired of being embarrassed on the talk page for the real article you've moved here now. Okay, please go ahead and explain:

A) what you think this has to do with what I'm saying on that talk page

B) how this has any relevance since it's a discussion post and not actually a WP policy

C) how dictionary definitions (which can be sourced, mind you, as they're written in published books) are 'interpretations'?

because I think your lack of neutrality on that article is blatant and I think you are exactly the type of editor that WP works desperately to avoid since you apparently have zero objectivity, and when it appears you can't manipulate the rules enough you fall back onto ridiculous ploys like this. Vindafarna (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not exactly a fan of Abd-ru-shin, so why would I seek to whitewash his article? It makes no sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu It's like a child throwing a tantrum because they're wrong and can't deal with it. So let me get this straight, you still haven't been able to adduce a shred of evidence from WP guidelines to show that dictionary definitions count as WP:SYNTh or OR, and when that doesn't work you harass people on their talk pages, and when that doesn't work, you make false accusations about my attempting to have you 'indeffed' (I don't even know what that means, mind you). But the best part of this is that you made a comment above about how you're "not exactly a fan" of the person that page is about and consequently it's now here for everyone to see that you have biases(!) I don't know if you're a member of the Grail Movement or what but you absolutely should not be editing a page that you have a personal involvement in as that is literally the definition of editorial bias. Vindafarna (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit WP-articles

like here:[1], please use HELP:Edit summary to make it easier for other editors to understand what you are doing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]