User talk:Wikimancer

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Wikimancer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ankithreya! 08:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial vs. Racially Charged

Please see the comment I posted on Geraldine Ferraro's discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubguy83 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wolfe

Sourced the "Radical Chic"/Wolfe reference in The Hulk. Mthwaite (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikimancer -- didn't think it a challenge at all: I've just always felt, as a politeness sort of thing, that if someone requests sourcing and you provide it, it's nice to offer a tip of the hat. Mthwaite (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Mosley

Hi. You added a mention of Oswald and Diana's wedding at Goebbel's house to the Max Mosley article. I've previously left it out on the basis that it's not directly relevant to Max. Would you mind commenting at the talk page on whether it's really needed in this article, and if so, whether that's the most appropriate place for it. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble! Thanks for getting involved. I think my unease is actually more caused by a sense that there's something else (and more important) missing from that part of the article than by feeling strongly that the wedding shouldn't be mentioned. 4u1e (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pheasant no peasant

It is actually "pheasant under glass"[1]--00:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Incredulously" (on my user page)

I can't believe I said that! I can't believe my father let me get away with that!

Actually, you are one of "those people" which puts you in some very good company. My father was a language professor. He died in 1976 but I can still hear him correcting my English. If you're credulous enough, I'll tell you that I was jokingly referring to my own incredulousness. John Harvey (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Munasinghe and the Nobel Peace Prize 2007

You said "I made an honest effort to find a reliable source for his inclusion and couldn't find any; if you want to add a fact, you need to find one for it"

Did you do a google search?

http://www.mindlanka.org/nobel.html

Sri Lankan Nobel Prize winner: People can make a difference http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/easrilanka130.xml

Lanka’s first Nobel Prize winner wears many hats http://www.nation.lk/2007/11/04/special1.htm

Alumnus shares Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/Nobel_Peace_Prize/

Next time, do a better search. Just because Al Gore happens to be better known, it doesn't mean that the co-winner should be ignored.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.238.74 (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle mayhem on Tony Snow

Thanks, I'll look into that. I'm sorry that that happened. I believe I was attempting to revert a single edit. Davewho2 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and tabloid trash

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Samantha Ronson. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of taking it upon yourself to act as an appointed judge for the quality of others' chosen sources, it would have been appreciated if you could have actually pointed out the specific policies you think were violated, a rather important part of the process you seem to have neglected in your hastiness.

I pointed out a policy: WP:BLP. I'm not the judge; Wikipedia policy is the judge.

I can appreciate your zeal for guarding against informal editing, but you've apparently gotten to a place where you aren't giving much thought to your reversions, in itself a serious offense ("Reverting should be taken very seriously"; "When to revert"), as reflected in your choice to punctuate your edit summary with "What hell is that?" This kind of boldness is arguably more harmful than any kind of poor sourcing, "tabloid trash" or not: you're obviously no innocent anonymous editor, so you deserve no leeway in being bold and you can take the time to collaborate with other involved, rules-and-guidelines-aware editors, who put as much time and thought as you might have into edits.

My "What hell is that?" is in response to your nonsensical statement: "Preemptive sourcing", something you "neglected in your hastiness".

In the interest of time and cooperation, I'll start by responding to what I can only assume was the thinking behind your reverting:

New York Times article - This was only a source for the second half of the sentence; I thought it might add some relevance and context to the information, considering the prominent introductory photograph of the relationship in question.

The total of the NYTimes statement relevant to the issue is "photographed smooching in Cannes, France". Women who have no lesbian relationship (which your edit clearly implies) have kissed in public without accusations of having a "relationship" (e.g., Madonna and Britney Spears on national TV).

"Dish Rag" - If you'd look more closely at the policies on verifiability or on biographies and at the citation in question, you can see that the source in question can be counted a reliable source, being an instance of "[newspapers' hosted] interactive columns that they call blogs... [where] the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control," the newspaper in question being the Los Angeles Times.

A blog is a blog is a blog. And the tip-off that it's tabloid trash are the weasel words "there are reports that they're now practically living together" with no reliable source named, just a link to a tabloid. The LA Times in print may be a reliable source, but not the online blogs associated with their webiste.

Salon.com article - What evidence can you point to for declaring Salon to be a "weak source"? Either way, this one only backs up the "pop-culture news" description; if you want to describe it as "tabloid"-reported, then you yourself need to find a source that says that.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, the editor who wishes to add controversial information to the article of a living person. What evidence do you have that it is a reliable source? Secondly, the salon.com article says "pop-culture reports of dalliances", again with no specific source named. Not exactly the hallmark of a solid source.

I'd appreciate it if you could respond on my talk page, as you've also templated me rather brashly without leaving me much in the way of a message. ~Wikimancer X *\( ' ' ^) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would appreciate your discussing the issue on the Talk page rather than edit warring and "brashly" making false accusations about my following Wikipedia policies. Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a lot of glib points

Please read the meaning of the word glib. You apparently don't understand the word. Ward3001 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but you haven't actually addressed the issue at hand. If I hadn't made myself clear enough earlier, the issue is: where, specifically, did I violate any policies? Which specific points in any of the policies you're referring to did my edits go against?

For the third (and final) time: the policies you have violated are WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. Ward3001 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely don't want to get into any sort of drawn-out, back-and-forth fight with you

Nor do (or will) I. Take this matter up on the article's talk page, wait for consensus, and if no consensus emerges, I will post an RfC to see what the Wikipedia community thinks about it. And until the consensus process plays out, please do not edit war. Ward3001 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's necessary for clarity (something that I'll admit I haven't been doing consistently, and that I think you can admit you haven't been keeping in the spirit of, either).

No I do not admit it. Ward3001 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your reasoning is, in itself, circular

Read more about circular reasoning. You don't quite grasp it. Ward3001 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, you reference a policy on weasel words that has nothing to do with sources in the first place in pointing to the "tip-off" against the source's reliability; then, you go on to point out that the "tip-off" on the source not being reliable is, in fact, that it doesn't itself reference a reliable source.

Weasel words have everything to do with this source. A questionable source that uses the weasel word "reports" without providing specific information about the source (except for a link to a tabloid) is not a reliable source. Anyone can set up a website and post the words "Reports say ..." and make up anything under the sun. I could write "Reports say that Martians have landed on Earth", but that doesn't make my statement reliable. I could even link the word "reports" to a tabloid, and that doesn't make it reliable either (and, in fact, probably makes it less reliable).

End of discussion on our talk pages about this issue. If you want any changes, take it up on Talk:Samantha Ronson. There's a lot more important work to do on Wikipedia than arguing endlessly over this garbage. Ward3001 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your contributions are clearly working against this project's central principle of cooperation, without which your contributing simply does more harm than good

Read, considered, and dismisssed as a narrow-minded, POV misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies. Now, if you don't mind, unless you have new issues to discuss, please refrain from editing my talk page so that I don't have to waste my time deleting it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was agreeing to end this discussion, but for the record, I'll also point out that in accusing me of misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, Ward himself actually misinterprets the Wikipedia-policy principle of NPOV, which has nothing to do with talk-page behavior, in contrast with the very relevant offenses of incivility and not assuming good faith, among others. ~Wikimancer X *\( ' ' ^) 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Samantha Ronson

I have posted an RfC to get views of a broader group of editors. A bot must finish setting up the RfC process on the talk page. In the mean time do not alter the RfC section on the talk page. After the RfC is set up you are welcome to add your opinions, but do not refactor the RfC or other editors' comments, as that is a violation of policy. I am also reverting the disputed information pending consensus, which very much conforms to WP:BLP's directives that "contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively". If you continue to revert without waiting for consensus, then it will be ME who will seek administrator intervention. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations

Here are links to my reverts: [2], [3], and [4], all in less than 24 hours. Read WP:3RR again. It's more than three reverts in 24 hours. Furthermore, reverting disputed controversial material per WP:BLP does not necessarily violate 3RR. So, please, kindly refrain from making false accusations, and please stop editing my talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations, again

RfCs are for discussion of the disputed material, not for making false accusations about and personal attacks on other editors. Please immediately remove your comments about me on the RfC and restrict your comments to your opinions about the issues addressed in the RfC, or I will take this up on WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little tired of your repeated, vague accusations of rule-breaking on my part: Stop making the false accusations or get used to my insistence that you follow policies.

This statement has nothing to do with the RfC issue (not to mention that is a personal attack that has no basis in reality): "this issue has come to be about Ward's uncooperative conduct as an editor".

You have 15 minutes to remove it before I go to ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject United Nations: We need you!

Dear Wikimancer, I noticed your name was under the participants' list of WikiProject United Nations. I wanted to invite you to contribute to the advancement of this project. Here's how you can do so: 1. Select the latest CC BY SA publications for which no articles have been created yet available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text/Education_publications 2. Follow the instructions available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia 3. Add the text to Wikipedia (either by creating new articles or adding content to existing ones). Since these are available under CC BY SA, you can copy/paste content and/or edit if need be. 4. Attribute the text using the 'Free-content attribution' template in the 'Sources' section. 5. Add your contribution in the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text/Education_publications Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions! Looking forward to working with you on enriching Wikipedia, one article at a time:)! C.recalde — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.recalde (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]