User talk:Asbl/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia, Asbl/Archive1! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
Welcome!
There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 04:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
You have not responded as to whether the claim is notable, which implies in part that you must cite a credible source. A web site content to repeat rumour-mongering from the blogosphere does not appear to be a credible source and therefore has not established that it has done anything more than publish loose speculation. The fact that he is unmarried does nothing to establish notability or credibility. Buffyg 14:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't throw around accusations of vandalism that aren't recognised by Wikipedia policy. If you want to make the edit, please argue the notability of the claim and the crebility of the source. Buffyg 16:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Replying to your post to my user page:
- As I don't otherwise speculate that unmarried men approaching the age of 40 are queer, I don't see why that would be any more indicative here. By the standards you are proposing, any behaviour that may be taken as vaguely inconsistent with social norms that then becomes cause for gossip is notable. I think not. The fact that Mehlman argues that he need not answer a question when confronted with zero material evidence does not make this any more noteworthy. A chain of "what ifs" is no more compelling than an isolated one. You appear above all to confuse the fact that there is no obvious evidence of his heterosexuality (i.e. a wife and children), which therefore implies that he is gay. That is thoroughly illogical. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not — the point is that is no compelling evidence that he is and hence nothing notable. Buffyg 16:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Lacking any response on your part, I have stricken your attacks from Talk:Ken Mehlman. You remain free to retract the remarks by deleting them yourself and offering an apology. Barring this or some misguided escalation of the matter, I can only say that I regret that you have mistaken my insistence that you justify your edits in terms of wikipedia policy for my taking a conventionally partisan stand against you. I expect I've nothing further to say to you other than to wish you well. Buffyg 18:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)