Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Qwyrxian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hello Q (for short)
You may wish to request rollback rights from any admin. When you see vandalism on Wikipedia, rollback is a very fast method of reverting consecutive edits by one person almost instantly. As such, its use would have been ideal for your recent revert of vandalism on the Caribbean article. Thanks, Tommy [message] 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I went to look at the page for requesting Rollback, and found that I may not quite qualify. They seem to be asking for a longer history, along with a strong attention to reporting back on vandals pages, which I haven't been doing (although I will now). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
(copied over from User talk:Christian75; saving here for future.
I just reverted an IP User:124.107.56.212 at the Human Sexuality page; I see you've been tracking him and have reported him to Administrators page. As I'm new to taking formal steps on vandalism, is there an easy way to produce that report the way you did, or is that compiled by hand? I appreciate any advice. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- A easy way to revert vandalism is by the script Twinkle which give you some new options ([rollback (AGF)], [rollback], [rollback (VANDAL)]) when you are at the "difference" page - theese new buttons will revert the edit and open the user talkpage and a "warning menu". When you got some more experience you can ask for rollbacker rights, and then using Huggle - which is an external program - it is very fast and does a lot of stuff automatically (including reporting at the Administrators page). A good article is Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism - Feel free to ask again. Christian75 (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Questions--the formspring questions are coming from the person in which the article is about, so wouldn't that be reliable if she is the one saying the things? Same with the YouTube video...its a video of Tinashe Kachingwe herself talking about the facts in question. You're also removing facts that were verified by her from her official Twitter page, which is a verified account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunners (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- First, please sign your posts on all talk pages, by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. And, I've just added info on the article's talk page. Verified Twitter accounts are no more reliable than unverified ones. And see my comments about the Youtube videos.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added plenty secondary sources, I don't understand why there are pages mirroring the same info that are still alive and not having any issues? Rewdnes (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because those sources do not do enough to establish notability. They establish that a DJ named King Magnetic exists, has released some songs with a collective called Army of Pharaohs. Those sources are not, in my opinion, sufficient to demonstrate notability under the guidelines found in WP:MUSIC. If you disagree, please express on the AfD page why those sources are sufficient. The important thing is that WP is designed not to be a repository of all information, but only notable information, so we always need establish that a particular topic is notable if it is to have a separate article. As for other articles that have the same lack of proof of notability, that's probably just because no one with a strict interpretation of notability has looked at them.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a source (books, websites, papers, etc.) that blindly state that Hudson discovered Jan Mayen. Some even try to rationalize why he didn't mention the discovery himself! I think its very important that this myth be dispelled. That's why it needs to be included on the Henry Hudson page as well as the Jan Mayen page. Please do not revert again. You're driving me nuts! Jonas Poole (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm making you crazy; I'm just doing my best to improve the encyclopedia within the framework laid out by policy and guidelines. I'm going to respond to the content details on the article's talk page so that the discussion is centralized and everyone can join. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you do it. I received barnstars for civility and antiflame and I am ashamed. You have consistently been tactful while other editors (or maybe just me) are just pissed off and sick of it. Your discussions with another editor have been exceptionally polite. Your recent response on the talk page at the Sea Shepherd article to an IP was something I would have expected from an admin (even though we do have sources for all of those WP:LABELs and weight might be the bigger concern ;) ). It seems simple enough, but the continuous civility you foster is not seen enough from other editors across the project.
 |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
| For consistent tact in an area that would be just a little less contentious if all editors had your patience.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you very kindly! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.: I hope that my kindness is not just a consequence of my inexperience. I'll try to not get jaded as I go on! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Yes you are correct, I do appreciate your advice that I should have warned that user about legal threat as it is not allowed, nevertheless after visiting user's talk page did I realize that the user was already warned about dubious and unnecessary edits and deletions but still vandalism was done to Hallaur. Like if any thing is included in the article should cite sources in the same manner deletion should be backed by reasons which lacked hence i refer it as vandalism. Secondly why I did editing in series and not once was due to editing being disrupted due to some technical issues. Yes apart from Demography and lead sections doe require sources nd we are working on that I have requested Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider, User:NeilN and everyone on Wikipedia to put forward their comments and render the possible help. Nevertheless at this time such a big scale vandalism occurred which without reason is not acceptable. Secondly you need to understand that why the user was referred as unknown, it was because the reason for deletion was not highlighted by the user. The answer is in your message itself that as long as the Wikipedia policies are followed any one can edit any article anytime, but the policy of reason for action was followed by that user hence the word UNKNOWN was used on part of irresponsible attitude of the user. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is true that the person was warned, so I see why you didn't follow up on that. If you see any more Legal threats from that person, please feel free to let me know--a second legal threat definitely warrants the issue being brought to a higher level (sometimes, even a single legal threat can result in a block). And if I understand what you're saying about the "unknown" part, probably a better phrase to use would be "Reverting unexplained edits." If you think the intention was to disrupt Wikipedia, then "Reverting unexplained edits (possibly vandalism) would be fine." I'm sorry I can't help find sources for the article, but cities in India are beyond my field of knowledge. Good luck on finding more information, and happy editing! Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your nomination of Mr and Mrs. Pau Gasol i Saez for speedy deletion, and the note on the talk page about not knowing what tag to use. The article was a speedy deletion candidate for WP:A10, which is for Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Have a read of the section to find out about what does or does not apply, and what tags to use. If you have any further questions, please ask away! Stephen! Coming... 09:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I just want you to know that with your edit, you basically just restored a broken link. The Facebook page in question was mirroring the info on the broken link – that's why it was used. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did intend to look back at the site later; however, as for Facebook, the WP:RS, social networking sites are almost never acceptable references, as they are, at best, self-published sites. It's possibly the whole link should be removed. Later today I'll have more time and I'll look into it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Maccy69 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(Just an FYI, more than anything else. I've contested the {{prod}}, though I suspect WP:AFD would be a good call). TFOWR 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, there's egg on my face. Good catch on my mistaken revert. Thanks ;-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Since there has been so much controversy/confusion surrounding the article, I have removed your PROD and procedurally taken the article to AfD. The discussion is located at WP:Articles for deletion/Fast Five (film). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please check out .Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Engrish (moved to bottom)
I just made an example of Engrish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackzaczaz (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you mean that literally (that you made up the example) then that would be original research, which does not belong on Wikipedia. If you mean something else, please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
As you know, I an a completely neutral editor in the Kimchi article, but like you I consider Hkwon's topic ban to be completely unfair and unjustified. I made what I thought was a reasonable suggestion to Fut perf to allow the issue to be resolved and he turned it down. If there is no movement I think we should take this to WP:AN] or whatever is the appropriate forum. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. As you may have seen, I've recommended on Hkwon's talk page that he tread very carefully here. His behavior was less than perfect, so I don't want him to justify FP's "topic ban" by doing something rash....I just checked FP's talk, and it seems he's insisting that he wants Hkwon to comment on his own behavior and discuss what he will do in the future, thus implying he still believes the "ban" was correct. My feeling is this should go to WP:AN (it's specifically, for me, an administrator taking strong actions that don't seem to be in accord with policy). I want to think a little bit about how to phrase it; I haven't encountered FP before, but, from looking at his userpage, it looks like he has made other "rogue" moves before that ultimately ended up being supported by the community. The more I think about it, the more I'd like the community, and the admin community in particular, to weigh in on whether or not FP's self-administered topic ban is an appropriate use of the implicit authority administrators have. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that.I have moved the text to Wikisource. We live and learn. All the best from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please stop caring quite so much about my edits and conflicts that do not involve you. If I say something that offends another editor, please let them deal with it as they see fit, also please do not put warnings about my comments on my talk page, I have been on Wikipedia long enough to be very aware of what is and is not acceptable, in regards to rules/guidelines concerning civility. With all due respect, we are adults, stop acting as if you have to jump in and protect people, it is annoying. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't care about your edits, except in those times where it is directly related to pages I'm working on. If you're referring to the ANI on Fut.Perf., I included you along with about 7 other people who were involved in the discussion. I then notified you because the rules of the ANI noticeboard required it. If you're referring to the prior time when I posted that you I felt you had passed the bounds of civility, I was just following policy. I wasn't so much stepping to protect someone as I was stepping in to stop both of you from destroying the very fragile detente we had that was allowing forward progress on the article. If you check, you'll see that I actually warned Hkwon as well. I did personalize the message I sent to you, because for non-vandals, I prefer to actually comment like a human, rather than just using templates. However,if you prefer, I can just leave you templated civility or NPA warning should the situation arise again, or, if you further prefer, you can ban me from your talk page and then I'll just ask someone else to issue any needed warnings. If you are "aware of what is and is not acceptable," then this shouldn't be an issue; however, either you are mistaken about what is acceptable, or you are willfully toying with the boundaries with the intent of getting others to cross them. I do promise that I'm not stalking you though, and will not be going out of my way to find you; any connection we have will simply arise from us editing on the same issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- What I am talking about is not so much your actions, but your patronizing tone, your lack of understanding regarding civility rules and your lack of respect in people doing things their own way as adults. Any templates placed by you on my talk page, will be removed - as will warnings I feel not to be required - same goes for any form of warning that you ask a third party to place on my talk page, the only response to these warnings will be removal. You don't need to give Hkwon moral guidance regarding my comments and how to respond to them, that is quite simply, none of your business. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- My humble apologies if you found my comments to be patronizing; I didn't mean them to be. I certainly respect the right of adults to do what the wish, governed by the rules of the context they find themselves in. And, of course, you're more than welcome to manage your talk page any way you like; similarly, I will make comments own talk pages or the talk pages of third parties (like Hkwon) however I wish, so long as I abide by policy. Most likely, this will not be an issue--it's a big encyclopedia, after all! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood and that's why you seem to have mischaracterized my advice to Hkwon when you referred to "Chrisrus's approach" and how you disagreed with it. Please re-read the things I say to him more carefully, here, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hkwon#I_saw_what_happened_to_you, and below that again. The problem seems to have to do with the word "fight" and my attempts to encourage him, with cheers and such, in order to make him feel supported and appreciated and encouraged to get him not to quit Wikipedia altogether, as I worried he would do. By "fight" I meant "don't give up". If you would re-read everything else I said to him around that word, you will hopefully clearly see that I was advising him to be civil and calm and matter-of-fact in tone and not to be emotional or confrontational in any way, to rely on evidence and reason, only. When I read your post in which you urge him not to "fight" but to "dispute", you are drawing a distinction between those words that is perhaps useful and appropriate and good, but it in no way contradicts my advice in any way, so please, there is no need to set your advice to him in opposition to mine, because your advice was actually exactly the same as mine, although we use the word differently. Thank you. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for apologizing and please accept my appology for not having taken the time to write a clearer and more organized post. The way it was written lent itself to being misunderstood, and I must apologize for that. Chrisrus (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a copy of a note placed at Kitsch as well. A group of editors has changed many aspects of the article crated from Kitsch. No effort was made to contact me as the primary editor. Was any attempt made to contact you regarding our reasons for creating the separate article? No understanding of the topic is evident in their actions. ----83d40m (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I responded on the talk page of the new article. Before you get too frustrated, please take a look at WP:OWN, and know that Wikipedia is always evolving and that no one, not even the "original authors" get to fix something in stone to never again be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply -- I'll take a look at your response on the talk page of the new article. I am and established editor here. I have no expectations of "ownership" and I have no problem with evolution, just with devolution. Improvements are to be sought, cowboys marching off to change things without taking the time to understand them, usually results in chaos, and that is how I see what has played out. The article has been turned into a discussion of one version of a statue, not of it as an aspect of a kitsch debate in contemporary culture in a city well known for its status in fine arts, as intended. The current article also has become disjointed and now even is launching off into discussions of other versions in other states. Thanks again. ----83d40m (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Ttnet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Errr... That is the largest ISP in Turkey... In fact the only ISP all others use TTNET's hardware for ADSL services I belive. I know this is a late reply as the speedy was reversed (by you). I just wanted to clarify the details. The company was recently (about a decade or so ago) privatized so it doesn't have much of a history which is why article is short. The company itself is colossal though - at least as far as Turkey is concerned... -- Cat chi? 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The problem wasn't actually wasn't whether or not TTNET was notable, it was that, when I placed the tag, the page was a massive advertisement--so much so that there didn't appear to be enough recoverable info to keep the page (speedy delete criteria G11). However, upon looking at the history, I saw that the problem was that User:Sena5k had added all of that advertising on top of a reasonable stub. I removed, the CSD, then reverted to a non advert-like page. While Sena5k kept adding advertisement-like language, I was eventually able to get through to him/her what was needed. He found a newspaper article (only 1, but better than nothing), and I helped him/her with a series of edits to keep the article in an encyclopedic tone. While the article as it now exists is just a stub, it's at least accurate, minimally cited, and doesn't read like an advertisement. I personally believe the company is more than notable enough to deserve their own article; I would love it if we could get more sources to verify that. If you know of any other reliable sources that we can use to expand the article, I'd be more than happy to help edit them in. Even if they're links to articles in Turkish, that's fine, as long as you or someone else can translate the basic idea, I am happy to copy-edit the info into a usable form. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I see. I should have researched before talking I suppose. This might be possible but unfortunately I am no longer anywhere near Turkey. So... we'd need a "local" to find written sources and etc. I can tell you a few things about the companies history. The company had an outage a few years ago when an underwater fiber-optic line was severed. The entire country lost internet for a few days. Could be its own section I think. Aside from that I do not know whats important enough to be in the article. :/ -- Cat chi? 23:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The problem wasn't actually wasn't whether or not TTNET was notable, it was that, when I placed the tag, the page was a massive advertisement--so much so that there didn't appear to be enough recoverable info to keep the page (speedy delete criteria G11). However, upon looking at the history, I saw that the problem was that User:Sena5k had added all of that advertising on top of a reasonable stub. I removed, the CSD, then reverted to a non advert-like page. While Sena5k kept adding advertisement-like language, I was eventually able to get through to him/her what was needed. He found a newspaper article (only 1, but better than nothing), and I helped him/her with a series of edits to keep the article in an encyclopedic tone. While the article as it now exists is just a stub, it's at least accurate, minimally cited, and doesn't read like an advertisement. I personally believe the company is more than notable enough to deserve their own article; I would love it if we could get more sources to verify that. If you know of any other reliable sources that we can use to expand the article, I'd be more than happy to help edit them in. Even if they're links to articles in Turkish, that's fine, as long as you or someone else can translate the basic idea, I am happy to copy-edit the info into a usable form. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you just delete 3 other references on purpose or is this a mistake? The sentence about misconception of dog being eaten in Europe only in times of famine is from Schwabe's book. The Chinese astronaut ref is from the Telegraph which you can delete but can you restore the Slate article and other 2 ref's?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
An article does not count as being categorized if it's only in a stub category, and not in any real content categories, because the stub categories are for internal maintenance purposes, not for user browsing. So an article is correctly tagged as being uncategorized if its only category is Category:Mixed drink stubs. Bearcat (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
user tulip32 why did you take off all of my music it is links deal with it it does not say that i cant put on links to my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulip32 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
i'm trying write article and why you're keeping attack to my article. i couldn't ever finish it! also i have some problems on wikipedia adn trying to learn this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is already an article on the History of Armenia. In general, there should only be one article per topic, unless there is a good reason (for example, sometimes there is an article on X, and then an article on "Criticism of X."). However, those types of splits (called "forks" in Wikipedia terms) are only supposed to be done with consensus, which you would usually gather at either the original article or the relevant WP:Wikiproject. I don't see anything in your article that leads me to believe a separate article is necessary. Is there some reason that you don't just try to add information to the existing article? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I know that here is article by name Armenian History.
But my article is different. On my article there is some facts that different from this topic and therefore i created new one. as u know im volunteer. Please just help me to learn this scripts and finish my article. And aslo insulting another user i know it's not polite but i was very angry because of he changed my article and linked it to another. im sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy to help you learn how to write an article, although I'm certainly no expert. The problem is that no article you write on Armenian history can possibly survive deletion, because it is a very basic policy to have only one article per topic. If we allowed multiple articles on each topic, we'd suddenly have 100 articles about every even slightly controversial subject (and Armenian History is certainly controversial). Again, if you have new or different information, the proper step is to add it to the existing Armenian History article. Is there some reason why you can't/haven't done that? The whole idea of Wikipedia is that everyone collaboratively edits articles together, not each person makes their own article about a topic. Please note that we are all volunteers (myself included), and I'm not trying to be unfriendly or unhelpful--I'm just trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by following the policies that currently have consensus. That's why I've been trying to discuss this with you rather than just using pre-made templates. One final note--when you write on a talk page (like this one or the article's), please put four tilda's (~~~~) at the end of your message--that will automatically sign your name and link to your page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
hi again. Thanks for answer. i can't write there any additional information because armenian's will call it as a disinformation. This is topic that another historians talk about armenian history and it's not same history like was written on article Armenian History. There different ideas but with facts! (Mirhasanov (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC))
- In that case, what you're talking about is a POVFORK. These are specifically disallowed. Again, can you see how, if allowed, we would end up with a hundred different articles about Armenia history, and probably a thousand different articles about something more controversial, like Christianity or Abortion? You're going to have to try to build consensus to add this information to the other page; if those editors are not acting in good faith and excluding information that is found in reliable sources, or not keeping the article in a neutral point of view, there are steps (called [[WP:DR|dispute resolution) you can take. What I recommend doing is going to the talk page of that article first and explaining what you want to add. Cite your sources. Listen to their answers. Discuss with them. I, personally, know absolutely nothing about Armenian History, so I can't comment on the actual content of what you want to add, but I do know that Wikipedia requires people to build articles together in collaboration, not go off and write their own article to give a different perspective. This is one of the things that makes Wikipedia different than other cites--our goal here is to build an encyclopedia. You'll note that if you pick up a real encyclopedia, you only find one article per topic--we strive to be the same.
- Finally, I want to note one additional thing, just so you're aware. Certain aspects of Armenian history--specifically, anything even somewhat related to Armenia--Azerbaijan, and the associated ethnic conflicts, are under what is called "General Sanctions." This means that the highest volunteer decision making board in Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee, has decided that, based on past bad behavior by other editors and the high sensitivity of the topic, editors must take extra care when dealing with these topics. As such, uninvolved administrators can warn and block people for behavior in this area that is contentious or has a battleground attitude. I believe that your actions on this article appear to be in good faith; however, now that you are aware of these sanctions and our policy on forking, you will be expected to abide by those sanctions. You can read about them in detail here if you like.
thanks for explain. then help me change this topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania
Here is about Albanians(Azerbijan History) but authors are armenians and there is disinformations.... how can i change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Propose a change on the talk page. I recommend starting with one change at a time. Make sure that you use reliable sources--for more information on what counts as reliable, please see WP:RS. Please note that if the books you are using are by Soviet historians, it is very likely they will be rejected, as Soviet academia is not known for producing neutral, accurate history. You're probably going to need some sources that are widely accepted worldwide, ideally from history journals or authors that are recognized as being neutral and reliable. I recommend not directly changing the article at first, but instead proposing the change on the talk page, since this is a sensitive subject under Arbcom sanction. I'll watch the talk page of that article and see what you post. One thing you definitely want to do is to drop the battleground attitude I already see you have. You can't just reject their opinion just because they are "Armenians." Wikipedia requires that all editors edit in a netural way, regardless of their own opinions. If you walk into that page saying "You Armenians are spreading disinformation that needs to be corrected," then no one is going to listen to you. Be civil and assume that everyone is, like you, trying to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. You mentioned something about a list and using your sandbox. Did you mean sections? If so, I have something set up that might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dog_meat#Project_.22Dog_Meat_Sections.22 Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My bad, your change was good. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with your revert. First, this is not a BLP so it can't fall under WP:BLP which is more strict, secondly, the purpose of tagging a section for lack of references means reasonable time is allowed to find and add refs (by anybody) and I have personally referenced many articles even though I never added the information, finally you may want to check the contribution history of the user I reverted, who has consistently been section blanking (vandalism when unexplained and repeatedly) the article which indicates POV. A BOT applied the July tag on 1 August so removing it 4 days later is hardly reasonable. This article is subject to repeated section blanking if you review the history and this user has been reverted before. You can reply here if you have comments.Fragma08 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, WP:BLP applies to all articles on Wikipedia--you may want to have a look at the policy. Any time a claim is made about a living person, that claim must be sourced. This claim, in particular, is very contentious, arguing that a person committed blasphemy, which is quite a serious claim and thus needs sources. Additionally, as a general rule, my opinion is that Wikipedia articles should be sourced now, not at some hypothetical time in the future (this makes me a immediatist). I often allow unsourced claims to sit in articles, but the more contentious/extraordinary the claim is, the faster it needs to be sourced. In my interpretation of policy, the correct thing to do is to first find references to support the claim, then add the claim to the article. Otherwise, I could go add any claim I wanted to any article, mark it with references needed, then defend it's inclusion for an indefinite period of time on the grounds that "I'm still looking for sources, why don't you look, too?" So, I still believe this section must be deleted. Yes, it would have been better if the deleter had used clearer, better arguments, but policy trumps both of your arguments in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well you may want to look closer at the WP:BLP, as it refers to Biographies of Living People. Deobandi is not a living person let alone a person. That said, of course claims should be referenced but do allow reasonable time, which is general practice on here. So policy in fact does not agree quite with your view on this. But our views as individuals don't really count here. I find that usually a month is allowed for such tags and not infinete time. Although I have come across 2007 tags in the past. It's bit concerning that you refer to a vandalist user who has deleted unreferenced and referenced sections (only "Criticism" and "Controversy" as a deleter who should have "had used clearer, better arguments". They don't have any. They simply want two sections removed. Again, look at their history of contributions to fully understand their edits. It's vandalism. And the fact that this user has been reverted by other users, should also point to this. You are free to remove this tag by the end of the month but for now it stays. Fragma08 (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am willing to accept that BLP doesn't clearly apply here; my thought process was that since the article talks as if there are still Deobandi now, the labelling of anyone following that schism as a heretic was a BLP issue. But perhaps that's a stretch, so I accept that this issue does not have the urgency I thought it did. Since me adjusting the article would be odd, could you do one thing, just so that this conforms with every other article I've seen on WP? At least in my experience, Controversy sections always come after main explanatory sections--in this article, History and UK. Also, is there a reason to have both a controversy and a Criticism section? Shouldn't these be combined, perhaps with sub-headings? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well you may want to look closer at the WP:BLP, as it refers to Biographies of Living People. Deobandi is not a living person let alone a person. That said, of course claims should be referenced but do allow reasonable time, which is general practice on here. So policy in fact does not agree quite with your view on this. But our views as individuals don't really count here. I find that usually a month is allowed for such tags and not infinete time. Although I have come across 2007 tags in the past. It's bit concerning that you refer to a vandalist user who has deleted unreferenced and referenced sections (only "Criticism" and "Controversy" as a deleter who should have "had used clearer, better arguments". They don't have any. They simply want two sections removed. Again, look at their history of contributions to fully understand their edits. It's vandalism. And the fact that this user has been reverted by other users, should also point to this. You are free to remove this tag by the end of the month but for now it stays. Fragma08 (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: I'm going to copy and paste this to the article talk page, since it seems to me that this is really a content issue that other editors should see, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again, no problem, I appreciate your comments and I can certainly see the concerns you raise. I don't mind you adjusting this article, as you have as much right as the next, but I will do it, as you asked me. Although not involved much contentwise at present in this article (so unsure of the heretics issue as this sect does appear to be quite widespread into mainstream from my research), I do agree with you that there should be one section comprising both currents critique sections. What main heading do you think, would be better to use? I will move it to after History and UK now. Fragma08 (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
[copied and pasted from my own talk page, see below]
- Thanks for noticing and coming to the discussion at WCAU. I was totally unaware of the discussion at the Village Pump...one more interesting behind the scenes place to add to my Watchlist, I suppose. It does appear that you had consensus (less one editor). One thing that I felt was missing from that discussion was that the places one would normally look to to verify the information, like Linkedin, Facebook, etc., don't normally count as reliable sources any way, as they're not only WP:SPS, but also they're SPS where it's nearly impossible to verify that the person posting is in fact the person they claim to be. I mean, just because there's a Facebook, etc. page for a "Tom Tucker" doesn't mean that 1) Tom Tucker really exists and 2) that the person making the page is actually Tom Tucker.
- I think I'm going to keep ahead with these edits. When it's not challenged, it's pretty easy work that I can do as a rest from either debating contentious topics or researching/writing significant prose. Did you have a methodology for "finding" stations? Like I mentioned there, an arbitrary but at least exhaustive way for me was to just use List of NBC television affiliates (table). If this is work you're still tackling, it saves us time to not overlap. I mean, it's of course obvious when a stations been edited, but not all stations have had this "alumni" creep, so it saves a little time. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly apologise for the terribly extended wait for this response, the real world does have its demands doesn't it. I believe I'll post this here and on your talk page as well, for your convenience; if you want to respond, it's your choice, either here or there. If you're experiencing any "verifiability shock" when you look at television station articles; it's perfectly understandable. I have about eighty of these sites on my watch list at the moment and they're a perennial circus when it comes to *not* providing sources for lots of relatively often changed material; not just lists either. I'm discovering that the more frequently ignored 'notable past employees lists' are not as "harmless" as some editors would like to believe. Completely unsourced and abysmally sourced allegations of things like serious criminal activity and suicide aren't common; but they're out there. Just to warn you: it can be particularly disheartening when you remove some of exactly that sort of material; along with other unreferenced stuff, and another editor deems it necessary to restore everything; including the potentially extremely libellous content. Here's a current example, check out the "Mike Longman" entry; BLP unreferenced, not even an edit summary when it was restored. This list is also an average example of the types of "vanity" and "promotional" entries that pop up in this context. The Facebook account link approach to referencing this type of BLP material is a non-starter in my opinion. There also appears to me, to be a fixation by some editors, dealing with this type of material; on the notability of the individuals themselves when it comes to matters of deciding inclusion. To me; that's only half the battle. The subject of the article is the television station; when you start looking closely at this type of list material; it's easy to get the impression that a lot of these entries are really not very notable in terms of their importance to the television station itself and vanity, promotion or "memorial", raises its head again. On what I think is the more "positive" side of this "paring" down of unreferenced BLP lists in these articles; out of the circa 80 stations I've worked with so far; apart from 'drive-by IP edits' and a nasty encounter with an entire stable of sockpuppets; there have been perhaps only a half dozen "serious" objections to what I've been doing; none of whom addressed the question of why they believe these lists are exempt from things like WP:NLIST and WP:Source list. I've rambled on long enough; I certainly don't want to discourage you from doing this kind of editing; I honestly believe it's a genuine service to the whole community; I hope you hang in there. If you do decide to 'keep going' and have any questions or comments; please feel free to drop me a note. This weekend, I'll be enduring the excruciating tortures of having to spend my evenings on an island in Georgian Bay watching sunsets; someone's got to do it. I'll be back online on Monday. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I'm new to this :) Gepaulio (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for checking in on my talk page. That information posted? Copied from a "popular" (well, common anyway) spam email, so no real privacy concern. So unoriginal! =) katherine_a (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read my comment on the talk page of Lingua Franca before removing Bengali. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 08:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
sure - I'll let you take the lead in trying to explain it to him. I did drop him a note saying he should read the manual of style. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrxian, You removed a number of substantial changes I made to the Mohamed Atta webpage. These changes were necessary in order to render the text less partial. Many of the allegations made in the text - as it was - are either not sourced or are based on unreliable sources (such as police allegations). It is important to distinguish on Wikipedia between reliable facts and beliefs. It is not a reliable fact that Mohamed Atta participated in the attacks of 9/11. It is a claim made by the FBI and promoted by the media. The FBI has never produced any hard evidence proving that Mohamed Atta boarded Fligh AA11. The absence of such evidence is significant and may not be suppressed for political purposes. I kindly request you to revert back those changes you made to accord with the rules of objectivity and reliability of the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetvetzedek (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I accept the notions of objectivity and reliability, although the way you applied them is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies. There's two things at issue here--one is a matter of phrasing, the other is a matter of sourcing. The first is easier to fix--Wikipedia tries to avoid "weasel words," like "allegedly", "supposedly," and "is claimed to" (words I think you used, or something similar). The proper way to handle this is to state exactly what the reliable sources state, and, if two sources are in disagreement, to include both sources (I don't know anything about the subject material, but the principle would be something like "The U.S. government found that Atta was in country X at time Y (reference #1), while person A said that he was in country B at that time (reference #2)." Which brings us to the second point, and that is that you need reliable sources that verify the claims you are making. There needs to be another, reliable, secondary source that states that these charges are questionable, unfounded, or uncertain. It's not enough for another source to have an interview with different "facts"--if you want to say that his identification is questionable (that there may be more than 1 Atta), then you need a source that says that explicitly. If the idea that there are 2 different Atta's is something you yourself have derived by putting together multiple facts from multiple sources, then we can't include it in Wikipedia (that would be original research, specifically forbidden by policy). Similarly, if this theory has only been presented on blogs, rumor mills, or hyper-partisan nwes sources, then it will be impossible to verify the information, as required by policy. I glanced at but did not read in detail the comments you left on the talk page. Here's what I recommend. Try taking one of the sources that you wrote about there. Be sure the source represents current information (that is, that it isn't based on a evidence that was later found wrong, or a statement that was later retracted), then write up a full, complete sentence that represents what that sentence says. On the talk page, propose a sentence that can be added to the article--let's start with just one sentence. Point to where in the article that statement should go. Then we can evaluate that statement alongside other evidence and determine if it belongs in the article, per policy. I personally find that it's usually a lot easier when you're dealing with something so contentious to go one step at a time. Remember, your job here isn't to convince us of a theory about Mohammad Atta--your job is to convince us that reliable sources verify information that is not currently included in the article, and should be. So I will decline your request to self-revert, but I will happily help review your proposals for additions to the article. Feel free to ask if you have questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your suggestions and will attempt to follow them. I did not propose a theory. There are two distinct sources regarding the earliest presence of Atta in the United States. The one issued by the FBI (or the US government), and the other made in an ABC national program by Johnelle Bryant. Unless there is evidence to dismiss her testimony as wrong, it was made on a national ABC program in an interview with a nationally known journalist, Brian Ross. Anyone wishing to remove this testimony would act against the ground rules of Wikipedia and be regarded as a government spokesman. I am really getting pissed off by attempts to defend official lies on the base that they have been published by mainstream media. Didn't it occur to you that mainstream media are in many cases simply a mouthpiece of the ruling elite and that the absence of particular information in mainstream media may sometimes be more signficant for understanding an issue than its presence?sannleikur (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course such a thought (your last one) has occurred to me. However, there's really nothing I can do about it, re:Wikipedia--we have no mechanism for deciding, that Station X is reliable but Newspaper Y is not. For example, it has recently been debated in a few places to consider Fox news to not be a de facto reliable source, because they have admitted in court that a legitimate function of their work is to distort and alter facts in the process of "reporting" the news. However, the consensus that formed is that despite such a claim, Fox is generally regarded as reliable and so can be used as such on WP. Here's another way to say this: if the mainstream media are all publishing "official lies," and we can't find other reliable sources (reliable international coverage, counter-interviews, etc.) to back up the "truth," then we can't put "the truth" into the article. You may want to take a look at WP:V, one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia policy--it explicitly states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...."
- I appreciate your suggestions and will attempt to follow them. I did not propose a theory. There are two distinct sources regarding the earliest presence of Atta in the United States. The one issued by the FBI (or the US government), and the other made in an ABC national program by Johnelle Bryant. Unless there is evidence to dismiss her testimony as wrong, it was made on a national ABC program in an interview with a nationally known journalist, Brian Ross. Anyone wishing to remove this testimony would act against the ground rules of Wikipedia and be regarded as a government spokesman. I am really getting pissed off by attempts to defend official lies on the base that they have been published by mainstream media. Didn't it occur to you that mainstream media are in many cases simply a mouthpiece of the ruling elite and that the absence of particular information in mainstream media may sometimes be more signficant for understanding an issue than its presence?sannleikur (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Going back to some of the specifics of what you say above. While I am not familiar with that interview, there is one concern with what you say--if the thrust of what you want to say about the situation is based entirely upon this interview, then we have a problem with weight. On a subject for which literally tens of thousands of interviews, news reports, scientific commentary, etc. exist, we cannot base too much of Wikipedia's stance on a single interview.
- I took a closer look at the final sentence of the lead clearly labeling Atta as the person who flew the plane into the WTC, and noticed that the official report does not actually state that, so I changed the sentence and cited it. I'll go see now what others thought. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I note that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth but with verifiability. If I understand this correctly this means that Wikipedia is merely an amplifier of official and semi-official pubications, something akin to the publications of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who only disseminated views acceptable to the "mainstream". However, the question arises, even within the Wikipedia parameters whether government publications can be regarded as acceptable "sources". They are certainly not "independent" sources and when they treat issues that might revolve about their own alleged malfeasance, they are far from "reliable sources". Thus, we would have to eliminate all citations to reports by the 9/11 Commission (which was not independent in any sense), to the FBI and to other government agencies, with regard to 9/11 or to other foreign policy issues. The question then would arise whether press reports that simply parrot the official line are more reliable. These questions must be dealt if Wikipedia has any chance to become a serious fact repository, particularly regarding burning questions of our time.sannleikur (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome to that opinion, but if you want people to agree with you, you're going to need to convince a lot of people to feel differently than they currently do. Furthermore, the Atta article is the wrong place to do this, because you want to make some fundamental changes to the ways we handle sources. I recommend starting with WT:V, the talk page for verifiability, or WT:RS, the talk page for reliable sources, depending on which route you want to go. For verifiability, I can tell guarantee, though, that you'll have no success. If we decided to focus on truth instead of verifiability, how could we ever settle a dispute when two editors disagreed about what is true? What if, for example, when three editors disagreed: one says only what is published at Fox News is accurate, another says only what is published at CNN is accurate, and a third says all media is unreliable and we should only trust what a certain blog he's reading tells him? In any event, if you don't like the way Wikipedia is governed, you really only have to choices: make persuasive arguments in the right places to change consensus (because even fundamental policies can be changed by consensus), or find a different site on the internet to work with. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Am I to understand that Wikipedia editors should not hesitate to publish lies, as long as these have been published in mainstream newspapers, and as long as no mainstream newspaper has published a rebuttal? The case you present about the difficulty of reconciling different views on the truth of a matter can be solved within the Wikipedia paradigm by simply elucidating the various views and referring to their main exponents. There is nothing mysterious about this. We all know that mainstream newspapers do not publish crucial new and views that do not fit their agenda, and that such information accordingly appears as marginal, even if millions of people actually agree to these views (but have no access to mass media). And anyhow, on what criteria are editors to decide what source is "reliable"? Is the New York Times a reliable source? Are you promoting the most reactionary form of information management, namely the dissemination of official "truth"? sannleikur (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not promoting anything. I'm simply telling you what Wikipedia policy is. You're really arguing with the wrong person--I have literally no authority here, nor am I a particularly noteworthy member of the WP community such that my opinions have much influence. I was merely trying to explain to you what steps you have to take if you want Wikipedia to change, and why, though you are certainly welcome to try, I think you'll have no success. I could go on and on discussing various points of your theory, or descending into the always exciting discussion of whether or not truth even exists, but it really would be futile. You persuading me of something accomplishes nothing for you in terms of changing Wikipedia's policies, and I don't really have any need to persuade you of my opinion. Again, I've pointed out the places you need to go if you want to start trying to change core Wikipedia policy. Let me know if you try--it will certainly be interesting to watch. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Am I to understand that Wikipedia editors should not hesitate to publish lies, as long as these have been published in mainstream newspapers, and as long as no mainstream newspaper has published a rebuttal? The case you present about the difficulty of reconciling different views on the truth of a matter can be solved within the Wikipedia paradigm by simply elucidating the various views and referring to their main exponents. There is nothing mysterious about this. We all know that mainstream newspapers do not publish crucial new and views that do not fit their agenda, and that such information accordingly appears as marginal, even if millions of people actually agree to these views (but have no access to mass media). And anyhow, on what criteria are editors to decide what source is "reliable"? Is the New York Times a reliable source? Are you promoting the most reactionary form of information management, namely the dissemination of official "truth"? sannleikur (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome to that opinion, but if you want people to agree with you, you're going to need to convince a lot of people to feel differently than they currently do. Furthermore, the Atta article is the wrong place to do this, because you want to make some fundamental changes to the ways we handle sources. I recommend starting with WT:V, the talk page for verifiability, or WT:RS, the talk page for reliable sources, depending on which route you want to go. For verifiability, I can tell guarantee, though, that you'll have no success. If we decided to focus on truth instead of verifiability, how could we ever settle a dispute when two editors disagreed about what is true? What if, for example, when three editors disagreed: one says only what is published at Fox News is accurate, another says only what is published at CNN is accurate, and a third says all media is unreliable and we should only trust what a certain blog he's reading tells him? In any event, if you don't like the way Wikipedia is governed, you really only have to choices: make persuasive arguments in the right places to change consensus (because even fundamental policies can be changed by consensus), or find a different site on the internet to work with. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I note that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth but with verifiability. If I understand this correctly this means that Wikipedia is merely an amplifier of official and semi-official pubications, something akin to the publications of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who only disseminated views acceptable to the "mainstream". However, the question arises, even within the Wikipedia parameters whether government publications can be regarded as acceptable "sources". They are certainly not "independent" sources and when they treat issues that might revolve about their own alleged malfeasance, they are far from "reliable sources". Thus, we would have to eliminate all citations to reports by the 9/11 Commission (which was not independent in any sense), to the FBI and to other government agencies, with regard to 9/11 or to other foreign policy issues. The question then would arise whether press reports that simply parrot the official line are more reliable. These questions must be dealt if Wikipedia has any chance to become a serious fact repository, particularly regarding burning questions of our time.sannleikur (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think you could help to add pic to this profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Pechet,_M.D.,_Ph.D.
Pic is available here: http://golgi.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/biochem/Tutors.asp?Display=83
We cannot seem to figure out how to do it despite the instructions on wikipedia.
tks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsands (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for the reverting of the vandalism on my user page. I really appreciate it. Many Regards, EDIT:
 |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page and reporting the IP who had vandalized in the past. Yousou (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
Please explain your warning for "vandalism" on Ian Durrant 90.200.240.178 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Laura Steel
Hi, please do not flag the Laura Steel article any more. I have added refeerences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danydanydany (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
See this website: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.148.71 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that reliable sources are needed, but surely adding the website of one group is no different to the website of the Cerberus Airsoft group who have also had a connection to the site. Wikipedia has been a champion for sharing information that was not previously available. By your actions it appears that the website would now censor those that cannot afford their own website, or choose not to pay for one for political beliefs, in contrast with corporations which have millions to spend on advertising and yet are also allowing wikipedia to do their work for them. This website is increasingly frustrating grassroots organisations. I hope a solution can be found before Wikipedia becomes something it started out to avoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.186.23 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand policy. It wouldn't matter even if that was a corporate website--it still shouldn't be there. Thank you for pointing out the Cerberus Airsoft link--that also shouldn't be there, and I have deleted it. However, someone might re-add it, and I wouldn't fight them on it, because there is a difference between sources and external links. You were trying to use the blog as a reliable source to verify the group's existence and activities. If you look at WP:RS, in the WP:SPS section, it states that self-published sites, like blogs, are not reliable. Lastly, I think you may misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Our goal here is (and always has been) to create an encyclopedia, not to be a place for people to express their ideas, or have their voices heard, or anything like that. Just like a real world encyclopedia, all of our information must come from reliable sources. So, for example, if that group received news coverage, we could include information from that news article, in appropriate weight to the importance of the coverage/topic, in the article. But surely you can see that we can't just rely upon self-published blogs for information--how could we distinguish between a "safe," or "reliable" self-published site, and one that was biased or even completely fictional? Please understand that I'm not passing any judgment on that particular blog--only on the use of blogs in general. I believe in Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability--I think it's the key thing that makes Wikipedia more reliable as a source of information than any other website. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Families Is NOT Social Networking. It Is Used For Users Who Need Help. It's Like User Adoption Except In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Families, Users Learn About Wikipedia In A Group (Called A "Famly") (Unlike User Adoption) --S1312 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The Fact About The "Peace" Symbol I have reserched the "Peace" Symbol and i now know that the Real name for the "Peace" Symbol is the Cross of Nero and that is a Fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.222.71 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely it was the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)? 89.242.186.23 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as the article (and the reliable sources it's based on it was. Are you the same editor as above, agreeing with the above, disagreeing, or did I make some mistake when I edited the article?Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Nero, emperor of Rome from A.D. 54 to A.D. 68
Hated Jesus Christ and Christians.
He wanted to proclaim peace against all Christians, Therefore he made a statement, By turning the Cross upsidedown, and then BREAKING it in a downward fashion.
This was supposed to signify the defeat of Christianity, This represents how peace in the modern world is a false, antichristian peace. --72.183.222.71 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of this theory; I either read Larson or someone who had a similar theory, probably based on his, way back when I was in high school. But none of this gets to the important issue--in order to include the information in Wikipedia, you need reliable sources. As you can see, I left your information in the article, using Larson as a source--that's what we do here. But, of course, I also left in 4 different sources talking about the person who actually designed the peace symbol, saying that it means something else. It is natural for Wikipedia to give heightened prominence to what the actual creator of the symbol says, over what people who came after him said. Does this make sense? Larson is, in effect, claiming that both Holtom, who designed the symbol, and the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, who commissioned the symbol, are both flat out lying. Now, that may be true, but as we sometimes say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Plus, the Larson & John Birch theories are not widely accepted, so they must have lower prominence in the article (see WP:WEIGHT). Do you have more sources than Larson? If you do, please present those sources here or on the article's talk page so we can determine if they are reliable or not. Remember, it's not like you need to persuade me--it's that you need to provide information in the format, style, and with the sources that Wikipedia policy requires. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
