![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
September 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Justin Raimondo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. There are plenty problems here. First, it takes a secondary source to establish whether this or that opinion or article by someone is notable--whether it is worthwhile mentioning it in the first place. This should go without saying. Second, secondary sourcing helps establish whether this summary of someone's arguments is neutral and correct. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Drmies, but I would have thought that Raimondo's articles are a reliable source for the purpose of establishing what Raimondo believes. I would not have thought there was anything at all objectionable about that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, now you know. To repeat: how would we know which of his ideas to list (all of them?), and how would we know whether a summary is neutral and correct? These things are not trivial. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Um, no. An article by a person can reasonably be used as a source for what they believe. Anyone can determine the accuracy of the summary by checking the original source. As for, "how would we know which of his ideas to list", editors can reasonably use their judgment about such matters. I see no reason to remove Raimondo's views on gay marriage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Give me one good reason why his opinions are noteworthy, opinions that apparently others have not found worth noting. What you're doing is simply fluffing up the article of a barely notable person, unduly giving weight to their positions which--again--others have not apparently found worth noting. Are you a fan? Here we go: currently he is on vacation ([1]); please add that to the article. On that same page he notes that his Tweets are sometimes "deliberately provocative" (what? Tweets that are provocative?); please add hat as well. In a tweet 5 hours ago he thanked God for Christopher Hitchens. Please add. Yesterday he retweeted something by someone called Peter Nisley about Gary Johnson. Please add.
What you are creating is what you perhaps want: Wikipedia as a trash can for factoids, and where you talk about "judgment" you exhibit none. For starters, why would you find it surprising that someone like this has paleoconservative views on gay marriage? I don't think anyone else was surprised. Now, I see that this talk page is full of warnings about edit warring; I smell a pattern. TTN, do you smell it too? Drmies (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Raimondo is a prominent political commentator and an openly gay man. Of course his views on gay issues are noteworthy, and a matter of public interest (your bad faith question about whether I am a "fan" of Raimondo is irrelevant, but the answer is no, as it happens). The suggestion that Raimondo's views on gay issues are as unimportant as the fact that he is currently on vacation is quite ridiculous. I invite you to discuss content disputes properly on the article's talk page, rather than leaving aggressive and unreasonable messages here. If you think Raimondo himself is not notable and that there should not be an article about him, then that is an altogether different issue. Go ahead and nominate the article for deletion if you wish. I am confident it would be kept. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strawman. Now find secondary sources. SELFSOURCE is fine for all kinds of factoids, but not for inserting this kind of information. No, there is no reason why his views would be notable, not without secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- To quote WP:SELFSOURCE:
- Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without :::::::the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
- Strawman. Now find secondary sources. SELFSOURCE is fine for all kinds of factoids, but not for inserting this kind of information. No, there is no reason why his views would be notable, not without secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Raimondo is a prominent political commentator and an openly gay man. Of course his views on gay issues are noteworthy, and a matter of public interest (your bad faith question about whether I am a "fan" of Raimondo is irrelevant, but the answer is no, as it happens). The suggestion that Raimondo's views on gay issues are as unimportant as the fact that he is currently on vacation is quite ridiculous. I invite you to discuss content disputes properly on the article's talk page, rather than leaving aggressive and unreasonable messages here. If you think Raimondo himself is not notable and that there should not be an article about him, then that is an altogether different issue. Go ahead and nominate the article for deletion if you wish. I am confident it would be kept. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Give me one good reason why his opinions are noteworthy, opinions that apparently others have not found worth noting. What you're doing is simply fluffing up the article of a barely notable person, unduly giving weight to their positions which--again--others have not apparently found worth noting. Are you a fan? Here we go: currently he is on vacation ([1]); please add that to the article. On that same page he notes that his Tweets are sometimes "deliberately provocative" (what? Tweets that are provocative?); please add hat as well. In a tweet 5 hours ago he thanked God for Christopher Hitchens. Please add. Yesterday he retweeted something by someone called Peter Nisley about Gary Johnson. Please add.
- Um, no. An article by a person can reasonably be used as a source for what they believe. Anyone can determine the accuracy of the summary by checking the original source. As for, "how would we know which of his ideas to list", editors can reasonably use their judgment about such matters. I see no reason to remove Raimondo's views on gay marriage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, now you know. To repeat: how would we know which of his ideas to list (all of them?), and how would we know whether a summary is neutral and correct? These things are not trivial. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The article is not based primarily on such sources.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I believe that all of those criteria are met for the material you removed, Drmies. Hence, there are no good grounds for removing it. Now, as requested, please discuss the issue properly on the article's talk page. If you want to remove the material, then as the editor who wants to change the article, you need to get consensus for your changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Warning
Your recent editing history at Karl Marx shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rocan Pandaso (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are the one engaged in an edit war at Karl Marx, Rocan Pandaso, not me. Your changes are opposed by multiple users, and I am only one of them. Your warning is in bad faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Garl Glittergold.png
![⚠ ⚠](https://web.archive.org/web/20160914074620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Garl Glittergold.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Cover
Hi there! Would you be able to find a cover for The Dawning of a New Age please? BOZ (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Corellon Larethian.png
![⚠ ⚠](https://web.archive.org/web/20160914074620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Corellon Larethian.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:D&DJann.png
![⚠ ⚠](https://web.archive.org/web/20160914074620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:D&DJann.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:D&DQuasi-elemental lightning.png
![⚠ ⚠](https://web.archive.org/web/20160914074620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:D&DQuasi-elemental lightning.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)