Babydoll9799 (talk | contribs) |
→Comments: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
and then had another go at me for not reverting my edit. But regardless of that you |
and then had another go at me for not reverting my edit. But regardless of that you |
||
have saw fit to accuse me of edit warring and being disruptive and all I have done is try to make a point. A point I might add that has not been respected.[[User:Babydoll9799|Babydoll9799]] ([[User talk:Babydoll9799|talk]]) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC) |
have saw fit to accuse me of edit warring and being disruptive and all I have done is try to make a point. A point I might add that has not been respected.[[User:Babydoll9799|Babydoll9799]] ([[User talk:Babydoll9799|talk]]) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:@[[User:Babydoll9799|Babydoll9799]], if you had read the pages I linked, you'd understand why your behavior is disruptive. And now I see that you're [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] at article, category, and user talk pages. I urge you to self-revert those before you get [[WP:TB|topic banned]] or [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]]. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 23:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:01, 30 October 2021
Mike Lindell
Hello Woodroar, Thank you for your input on these updates.
Please clarify your reasons for removing the label for conspiracy theorist for Mr. Lindell on the Mankato, Minnesota page - as this is why he is well known as a national figure. He is currently listed as the CEO of a pillow company, which is not the reason for his notoriety. His own wikipedia page references his position as a well-known conspiracy theorist. The attempts at clarifying his reason for being a notable person was not out of an attempt at a personal attack - but at the actual reason for his position as a national figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.200.6.3 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted your edits for several reasons. First, our neutral point of view policy requires that we faithfully summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, and they tend not to describe Mike Lindell as a "conspiracy theorist". In fact, I checked stories at the top of Google News results and couldn't find any that did so. Sure, plenty of articles mention that he promotes conspiracy theories—which we cover at Mike Lindell#Attempts to overturn 2020 election—but not to the point where they label him a conspiracy theorist. Unlike, say, Alex Jones, where reliable sources are consistent about that label, to the point where it's in the first sentence in our article about him. Second, our biographies of living persons policy requires that we take great care when editing articles about living people, and unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed immediately. Ultimately, any claim that someone is a conspiracy theorist should be supported by high-quality reliable sources, and only if the subject is widely described as such. And that doesn't appear to be the case with Mike Lindell. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Woodroar. Replying from a separate IP. I have trouble finding a reliable source that focuses on his career as the CEO of a pillow company, and not on his promotion of conspiracy theories. I would challenge you to find a recent reference from a reliable source which focuses on his role as a CEO and not as his role as a promotor of debunked claims about the 2020 United States Presidential Election. I would suggest that Wikipedia omitting his national fame as someone who promotes conspiracy theories would be disingenuous and frankly akin to a lie by omission.
- 2601:282:100:6350:A9DC:9D39:FF77:EC2F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are a couple things to unpack here. Our Neutral Point of View policy says to summarize "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not only what's happening now. In fact, our explanatory page WP:RECENTISM specifically warns us against focusing on recent news. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. That being said, even if we did look exclusively at recent sources, the articles you mentioned prove my point. None of them call Lindell a "conspiracy theorist" as far as I could tell. Instead, they refer to him as the "My Pillow CEO", "My Pillow founder", "founder of MyPillow", "the company’s founder and chief executive", "C.E.O. of MyPillow", "the MyPillow guy", and so on. The only instance I could find of "conspiracy theorist" in any of those articles was The Guardian talking about Sidney Powell. And that actually says a lot, The Guardian using that term for Powell but not Lindell. Look, I'm no fan of Mike Lindell or Sidney Powell or any of these people, but we're here to summarize what the sources say, not add our own opinions. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- 2601:282:100:6350:A9DC:9D39:FF77:EC2F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not a hill that I plan to die on - but it's a bit contrived to claim a significant distinction between someone who "promotes conspiracy theories" and a "conspiracy theorist."
- Calling recentism in this case is a stretch given that his widespread notoriety didn't precede the 2020 election. I think it is unlikely that that an encyclopedia-oriented historical view of Mr. Lindell will focus on pillow sales rather than his personal relationship with the President of the United States.
- Furthermore, it's significant here that Mike Lindell wasn't even added to this page until 1/26/21 - 8 days ago, after gaining notoriety for meeting with the president to promote a conspiracy theory. I think the page in its current form clearly misrepresents Mr. Lindell as a simple CEO of a pillow company. 2601:282:100:6350:A9DC:9D39:FF77:EC2F (talk)
- I get where you're coming from. But there are plenty of adjectives that describe subjects and we can't include them all. We have to focus on what the core identity of the subject is—as identified by reliable sources. In many ways, it's like calling someone a racist or just someone who has said or done or believes racist things. A grand wizard of the KKK? Sure, they're a racist. Being racist is basically what they do. But most people don't make a career out of being racist. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but we have recognize that distinction because it's there in the sources. I should also mention that our article on Lindell was created in 2017, when he was known as a pillow company CEO who made wacky commercials. Virtually everyone editing Wikipedia is a volunteer, so it takes time to write articles and link them around. As we say around here, "There is no deadline". Anyways, I agree that Lindell's profile has changed significantly now, but we can't lose sight of the bigger picture—or ignore how reliable sources choose to write about him. And if that characterization shifts in the future, we can always update our articles to reflect that. Woodroar (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it's significant here that Mike Lindell wasn't even added to this page until 1/26/21 - 8 days ago, after gaining notoriety for meeting with the president to promote a conspiracy theory. I think the page in its current form clearly misrepresents Mr. Lindell as a simple CEO of a pillow company. 2601:282:100:6350:A9DC:9D39:FF77:EC2F (talk)
Luigi De Falco and H2biz
- Both Luigi De Falco and H2biz scream non-notable and undisclosed paid editing to me. Woodroar (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I propose the deletion of this page. It's clearly a self published résumé. Also, no page in Italian of this "notable" Italian guy.Can you please assist me with this? Mobydick98 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobydick98 (talk • contribs)
- Hi Mobydick98, I'll try to find the time, yeah. But I would also like to wait and see if anyone else replies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luigi De Falco. Woodroar (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Juniperus virginiana
I added the data and a Ref, thanks for spotting my unfinished edit.--Stone (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Question
what prompted you to send me a message that asks me to include references etc? There was nothing specific and no mention of any 'infraction'...I only sign in once in a bluemoon so pls. don't expect answers right away from me. Hazael bc (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
- Hi Hazael bc, the message was about your edits here and here. Both added references to the Institute for Creation Research blog, which is in no way a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
I appreciate the notice. I'll work to ensure that article and my future edits follow it. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- BananaYesterday, thank you very much! Please let me know if you have any questions at all, or would like me to take a look at the article after you've worked on it. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Article "LowTierGod" - still requiring removal of the name from the Infobox
Hello, thank you for cleaning up the article LowTierGod, and especially for removing the unsourced claim about the name "Dale Emanuel Wilson". I just want to point out that the claim still exists in the Infobox of the page. The claim was displayed in two places, the introductory sentence, and the Infobox. Could you please also remove the claim from the Infobox also?
Thank you once again for your voluntary work on the articles.
Incidentally, the Infobox of the page also states that the person was "born in California, United States". This claim is likewise not supported by any valid sources.
Shortscircuit (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Shortscircuit, I totally forgot about the infobox! That has now been removed. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Now that the article has been cleaned of the unsourced claims, it is more obvious how thin the subject matter is. This was the reason why I had initally sought deletion. I think that special attention needs to be placed on this article so that the unsourced claims cannot be added back into it after the semi-protection period ends. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Shortscircuit, it's on my Watchlist and—I have to assume—several other editor as well, after getting mentioned at ANI, BLPN, etc. I agree that the article is thin because there's not much coverage there, but I'm not sure if it's thin enough to support deletion. We'll have to see if other editors find more reliable, independent sources to add. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Now that the article has been cleaned of the unsourced claims, it is more obvious how thin the subject matter is. This was the reason why I had initally sought deletion. I think that special attention needs to be placed on this article so that the unsourced claims cannot be added back into it after the semi-protection period ends. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Personal clarification that is important to me
In my judgement, euphoria is an epitome of sickness. I think only true cruel rape and snuff enthusiasts enjoyed this game. It's important to me that you'll know this. I was looking for thorough criticism about euphoria but only found incidental quotes. I have not dispaired of finding these, though. euphoria is a dangerous bundle of good, even excellent production of a deeply immoral content - a bit like120 days of Sodom but in my opinion even worse - because euphoria's outright intention is to induce sexual arousal from extreme sadism. My curiosity had the better part of me to play euphoria, and the excellent writing kept me trough a repulsive and traumatizing experience - this is exactly what I would have conveyed in the article if I was a "reliable source", which I'm not. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- אילן שמעוני, I understand. Enjoyment of problematic media and/or creators is complicated and everyone's line is different. And that's only enjoyment—there are plenty of other reasons to engage with media that we don't even enjoy. I mean, I get involved in plenty of BLP articles on Wikipedia where I find the subject detestable, but I still want the article to be encyclopedic and not some rant against them. So I get it. While I disagree with your arguments at the AfD, I certainly don't think you're a bad person or anything because of it. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you 😊 אילן שמעוני (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- On another side note - I'm pretty sure that the sources will not be authorized, but a serious attempt to put an important article must be done. For all the little hope there is to it, I hope the article stays. There's a problem with too-binding sourcing policy that fail to approve this article, however it is the policy. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- אילן שמעוני, be careful what you wish for! Most amateur games websites are awful. There's no fact checking, no separation between news and opinion/editorial and gossip, no labeling of sponsored content or articles based on press releases. That's probably great for developers, because they can pay for coverage, pay for "game of the year" awards, pay to run unsubstantiated rumors about their competitors, etc. But I certainly wouldn't want to read that. Wikipedia would be unrecognizable, no better than your average internet forum. Just something to think about! Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- But... all this points have been proven moot for LewdGamer... 🙄 אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- אילן שמעוני, have they? I just skimmed through a few dozen articles and virtually all of their "content" is repackaged press releases, either quoted without attribution (which is sketchy) or rewritten (which is even sketchier). They have sections for censorship and tech news, editorials, comics, but they're written only 3 or 4 articles this year. Compare that with their press-release-driven "gaming" section, which has at least 40 product announcements this month alone. That's the definition of churnalism. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- But... all this points have been proven moot for LewdGamer... 🙄 אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- אילן שמעוני, be careful what you wish for! Most amateur games websites are awful. There's no fact checking, no separation between news and opinion/editorial and gossip, no labeling of sponsored content or articles based on press releases. That's probably great for developers, because they can pay for coverage, pay for "game of the year" awards, pay to run unsubstantiated rumors about their competitors, etc. But I certainly wouldn't want to read that. Wikipedia would be unrecognizable, no better than your average internet forum. Just something to think about! Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Note of thanks
I just wanted to send you a small note of thanks regarding our discussion on John McGuirk. Obviously we didn't come to an agreement, but I found your contributions civil and perfectly pleasant, even where I didn't agree with your points. It was particularly nice given that was not the standard of response I had received up to that point. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you as well! I'll be the first to admit that assuming good faith and remaining civil can be difficult at times—in other cases, at least, not this time—but it's definitely the right thing to do. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just as an addition to this, given the current circumstances. What is the protocol here if B simply refuses to accept that a source does not say what he wants it to say and keeps adding it back? He's just spamming stuff on the Talk page now, and refusing to comment on your suggestion every time it's put to him, and it feels like he's actively trying to disrupt and derail. I'm new, so maybe this is just how things are done here, but it doesn't feel constructive and I'd prefer a solution rather than having to response to someone multiple times because most of their comments have a negative accusation against me inside it. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, a few things, and please excuse me if I'm too honest here:
- First, I agree that the source should probably be (or stay) removed. I'll add my thoughts at the article Talk page shortly. But before we do anything, I want to hear what other editors think and see if a consensus emerges.
- Second, you should really step back and let discussions happen. You don't have to respond to everyone. We're not operating on a deadline and we're also (mostly) volunteers, so it can take some time to develop a consensus. And if that doesn't happen, we have ways to get more input, like WP:3O or a noticeboard. But you've made more than 45% of the edits and added more than 47% of the text at Talk:John McGuirk, plus you've started discussions at BLPN, NPOVN, RSN, and at individual editors' Talk pages. It may seem like you're inviting more input but what's more likely is that nobody wants to get involved now. I've found that if you start a discussion and nobody responds right away, give it a few days or even a few weeks.
- And third, if you do have a conflict of interest, it's not too late to disclose it. Your focus on this single issue was questionable before, but the timing with this source update is beyond suspicious. The best way to prove those suspicions are unfounded is to go edit other articles for a while. And while I (now) agree with you about removing the DCU source, I also understand why editors like Bastun might not have any good faith left. We have a saying, "assuming good faith is not a suicide pact". While we should always approach disputes with good faith, it's not a finite resource—and there are occasions where it's entirely appropriate to drop it.
- As always, if you have any questions, let me know! Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- No need for any apology on the honesty front, I'm always happy to hear it. On stepping back I do take your point, but I think a fair amount of that is me responding to comments with rather direct comments about my conduct. I had actually stepped away for a while and had thought the RSN and NPOVN discussions would have ended whilst I was away. On my focus on the article I had originally just signed up because I saw something I thought was clearly wrong and I, rather naively, thought I'd pop in, change it to what I thought was supported by sources, and be on my way. I accept your point on the timing, but I would also make the point that if I was acting in bad faith I would have been smart enough not to bring it up the first day it was changed. On good faith I don't think Bastun started with any to lose, but that may just be due to how we ran across each other.
- Just as a general question on Wikipedia it seems like there are far fewer editors than I had expected, on Irish articles particularly, has that always been the case or have I just been looking at smaller articles? Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The number of active editors increased rapidly and peaked in early 2007, declined to early 2013, and has been slowly increasing ever since (but not to 2007 numbers). You can see a graph here and tinker with some of the parameters. But editor count definitely varies by subject too. There are probably more editors interested in subjects like Pokemon and wrestling than articles about most nations. Also, a great deal of content gets added by anonymous/IP editors as well—the last I heard, they add more than 50% of the content on Wikipedia, though a significant amount of that gets removed as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. I had really expected there to be more editors .That was actually part of why I took the far-right thing to the other noticeboards, I had assumed the McGuirk page was basically a dead page based on the low number of people there, but it looks like I just overestimated the number of active editors. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't help that most of the article creation is done—in a lot of fields, at least. Barring new developments or sources, the important and/or popular articles are essentially finished. Now it's less about "creating" and more about "fixing", which isn't as exciting.
- Anyways, if you're interested in finding articles to work on, I recommend joining a WikiProject. We've got regional projects like WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Northern Ireland, for example, or just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject and search for something. You're much more likely to find active editors who know more about the specific subject. They're also a great resource for outside opinions if you're involved in any more disputes.
- I hope that helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't help that most of the article creation is done—in a lot of fields, at least. Barring new developments or sources, the important and/or popular articles are essentially finished. Now it's less about "creating" and more about "fixing", which isn't as exciting.
- Interesting. I had really expected there to be more editors .That was actually part of why I took the far-right thing to the other noticeboards, I had assumed the McGuirk page was basically a dead page based on the low number of people there, but it looks like I just overestimated the number of active editors. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- The number of active editors increased rapidly and peaked in early 2007, declined to early 2013, and has been slowly increasing ever since (but not to 2007 numbers). You can see a graph here and tinker with some of the parameters. But editor count definitely varies by subject too. There are probably more editors interested in subjects like Pokemon and wrestling than articles about most nations. Also, a great deal of content gets added by anonymous/IP editors as well—the last I heard, they add more than 50% of the content on Wikipedia, though a significant amount of that gets removed as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, a few things, and please excuse me if I'm too honest here:
- Just as an addition to this, given the current circumstances. What is the protocol here if B simply refuses to accept that a source does not say what he wants it to say and keeps adding it back? He's just spamming stuff on the Talk page now, and refusing to comment on your suggestion every time it's put to him, and it feels like he's actively trying to disrupt and derail. I'm new, so maybe this is just how things are done here, but it doesn't feel constructive and I'd prefer a solution rather than having to response to someone multiple times because most of their comments have a negative accusation against me inside it. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting this page. The IP is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nair Saheb, Always trying to remove content.42.109.129.157 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm duplicating a message I posted on the NS article's Talk page. I now see that you were advising Dukezhou about secondary research, and not necessarily planning to collaborate with them on future edits to the article. Hello Dukezhou and Woodroar. There is a 2006 collection of academic essays about Neal Stephenson and his fiction up through the Baroque Cycle, Tomorrow Through the Past: Neal Stephenson and the Project of Global Modernization, edited by Jonathan Lewis, an English professor at Troy University (Alabama, not Çanakkale Province). [On my original post] I linked to the collection's Google Books preview, which has a detailed ToC and part of the index, as well as a helpful Preface containing a biography of Stephenson and detailed descriptions of each essay. The essays are not visible in the GB preview, but if this looks like a useful source of notable/reliable secondary research sources, I can contact the editor about making it available to you. Bridgman (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll leave a reply at Talk:Neal Stephenson shortly. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
ARBIPA sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.The article on Gadhimai festival relates to these sanctions. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the alert, although I'm not sure that a festival in Nepal falls under WP:ARBIP. Regardless, it's good to know, so thank you. Woodroar (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Logan Mccree article
Excuse me Woodroar, but i think it's a total mistake to undone the edit about the subject in question. The information bringed is totally real and verifibly, i don't know if it's posible to cite porn pages to show you how the category of hardcore pornography and the type of porn he has realized are accurate. Also the other paragraph with new update about his life is accurate, and the cite for that video it is there. I don't know what can be better than a video with the person itself admitting and saying those things in front of camera to the public. How is it possible that a video of the person himself is taken into account less than information from third-party media ? I hope you could let this edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberBoB (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @CyberBoB: most content on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party published sources. That means reputable news sites and magazines, books, journals, and so on. When it comes to content about living persons, especially claims that could be seen as negative or controversial, the bar for sourcing is intentionally set very high. Now we do allow some claims based on what people say about themselves, but mostly for basic, uncontroversial facts. In this case, we'd need high-quality sources to support any claims about the type of pornography someone makes, particularly if we're throwing around words like "violent". Likewise, a YouTube video from an unverified account is unlikely to meet our sourcing requirements. If reliable sources consider the video important enough to cover, then we can mention it in the article—but we'd cite them, not the YouTube video itself. Keep in mind that our "job" here at Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources say, not to highlight what we think is important, and not to add our own commentary or opinions. You can click those links I added to read more about our policies and guidelines, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Max Kolonko
Why are you editing articles you obviously have no knowledge about? What is your education? 2A01:118F:555:9A00:F918:2418:7D4C:47D2 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I know basically nothing about Max Kolonko, really. The first I'd heard of him was at a noticeboard discussion about the article a month ago. Thankfully, we're here to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects and not write based on our own knowledge. If you know of more sources, please suggest them at Talk:Max Kolonko. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Mizkif
I disagree with your point about Matthew's surname. Your point about the Yearbook doesn't make any sense since Mizkif himself reacted to these photos and he claimed to be the individual in them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4mzILoBv6c&t=509s) This PDF shows the yearbook from Verona High School. In the yearbook, you will see pictures of a person who clearly is Mizkif, which he himself has stated to be the individual in the pictures. He also claims that he was a "class clown" which is why you see "Matt Misrendino" under the class clown section in the PDF. Also from Mizkif Enterprises it also clearly shows that Mizkif is Matthew Misrendino. If that wasn't enough proof, his close friend Erobb221 streamed with one of Matthew's close friend, where the friend accidentally used Matthew's real surname. The vid There are also various of other proof that shows that Mizkif's real name is Matthew Joseph Misrendino. The name "Rinaudo" comes from an old meme in the 2017 era, where he called himself Rinaudo to jokingly act like he is siblings with Emily Rinaudo. There is proof that those two are not related at all and that it was a meme that started in the Ice Poseidon subreddit. Everything points to Misrendino being the real name. The other sources which called him anything other than that has clearly not done enough research about his real name. The yearbook is literal proof and probably more reliable than the sources you've looked from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exentily (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with this argument, I believe, is that this argument is essentially synthesis of research, and Wikipedia is not a research website but a collection of sourced facts. Since the overwhelming majority of sources record Mizkif's name as Matthew Rinaudo, including himself personally along with news articles reporting about the content creator Mizkif, that this is the commonly known name and should be the name used in reference to Mizkif on Wikipedia. BreckenK (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exentily: at Wikipedia, we base our articles on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). And when it comes to claims about living persons, we must be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources" (WP:BLP). Sure, sometimes that means we get things wrong. But we're a tertiary source, which means that we summarize what reliable, secondary sources say.
- There are probably dozens of reasons why we shouldn't use "Misrendino". It could be a middle name that he went by. It could be a mistake that he didn't mention in his video. It could be a birth name that he changed later on. We don't know. The yearbook is simply not a reliable secondary source because yearbooks don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We can't use the opencorporates.com source because it's a copy of a public document, which isn't appropriate for claims about living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The video from his friend can't be used for claims about other persons (like Mizkif) per WP:BLPSELFPUB.
- What we do have are several high-quality reliable sources that give Mizkif's name as Matthew Rinaudo. It doesn't matter if it's wrong or if it's based on a joke, because it's what those reliable sources use.
- I've used the analogy before that editing articles about living persons is like playing a game on hardmode. You can get blocked or banned very easily if you're not familiar with our policies and guidelines. I'll leave some links on your Talk page. I suggest you read them before editing any more articles about living persons because I'd like to see you become a productive editor. Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd like to apologize. I'm very new to this, so I shouldn't have edited the article without reading how it works. I understand now that Rinaudo is more commonly used with reliable sources and even Matthew refers himself as Rinaudo. So the obvious choice for the Wikipedia article is to use Rinaudo even though it's wrong. Exentily
- Exentily: it's totally fine, really. I'll admit that this is a weird case. It's entirely possible that Rinaudo is a joke, but if he got The New York Times and ComicBook.com to go along with it, then that's kinda what we have to follow. And maybe sources will come along tomorrow that say "wait a minute, his real name is Misrendino!" and then we'll change it back. Definitely a weird one. Woodroar (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Woodroar: I have a question. Wouldn't it make sense to make a section in the Mizkif Article that discusses the controversy around Mizkif's real name or is it irrelevant/there's not enough proof? Exentily (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exentily, if reliable sources cover the name controversy/discrepancy/change/etc., then yes—or more accurately, maybe. So say a reputable site publishes an in-depth article covering the joke, where it came from, that some places were duped (if that's what happened), then that might deserve a sentence or two in the article. But if it's a trivial mention in a really short news report, then maybe it's not important enough for us to summarize at all. Or let's say that multiple sources cover it in-depth, then we'd almost certainly write about it and maybe even add an entire section. Our goal is to summarize what reliable sources say and roughly in proportion to how much coverage they give each aspect of the subject. So we really need to look to them and gauge whether such a section would deserve a sentence or a paragraph...or nothing at all. But the sources really need to come first. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ahh, so it's all 'bout the sources Exentily (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exentily: that's exactly right. In fact, our "core content policies"—the policies that say what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia—are 3 different ways of saying the same thing: Verifiability (we need to base content on reliable sources), Neutral Point of View (we need to fairly and accurately summarize what reliable sources say, we can't twist them, we can't cherry-pick claims, we balance around sources, etc.), and No Original Research (don't write based on what you know). Woodroar (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ahh, so it's all 'bout the sources Exentily (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exentily, if reliable sources cover the name controversy/discrepancy/change/etc., then yes—or more accurately, maybe. So say a reputable site publishes an in-depth article covering the joke, where it came from, that some places were duped (if that's what happened), then that might deserve a sentence or two in the article. But if it's a trivial mention in a really short news report, then maybe it's not important enough for us to summarize at all. Or let's say that multiple sources cover it in-depth, then we'd almost certainly write about it and maybe even add an entire section. Our goal is to summarize what reliable sources say and roughly in proportion to how much coverage they give each aspect of the subject. So we really need to look to them and gauge whether such a section would deserve a sentence or a paragraph...or nothing at all. But the sources really need to come first. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Woodroar: I have a question. Wouldn't it make sense to make a section in the Mizkif Article that discusses the controversy around Mizkif's real name or is it irrelevant/there's not enough proof? Exentily (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exentily: it's totally fine, really. I'll admit that this is a weird case. It's entirely possible that Rinaudo is a joke, but if he got The New York Times and ComicBook.com to go along with it, then that's kinda what we have to follow. And maybe sources will come along tomorrow that say "wait a minute, his real name is Misrendino!" and then we'll change it back. Definitely a weird one. Woodroar (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd like to apologize. I'm very new to this, so I shouldn't have edited the article without reading how it works. I understand now that Rinaudo is more commonly used with reliable sources and even Matthew refers himself as Rinaudo. So the obvious choice for the Wikipedia article is to use Rinaudo even though it's wrong. Exentily
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
very cool person Exentily (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
Editions of Dungeons and Dragons
Hello! Yes, that was my first edit. It allowed a website to be cited and I used the official product page itself. The actual article I intended to reference is here: https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/37123/esper-genesis-sci-fi-rpg Can that be changed or do I need to rewrite the edited section? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydawnknight (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Skydawnknight, we would need better sourcing than ICv2—and the game would likely have to meet our general notability requirements as well. Note that most of the games in that section are cited to reliable, independent sources, they have pre-existing articles, and are connected in some way to Dungeons & Dragons—or at least the source makes that connection. By contrast, ICv2 is an industry/retailer site with questionable reliability or independence, and in this case, it's covering a pre-publication Kickstarter launch. In short, that source is basically a rewritten press release. If you can find more reputable and independent sources and start an article about the game, then maybe we can add it back. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI
You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djm-leighpark. FDW777 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Motorcycle Action Group
Hi Woodroar. Thank you for cleaning up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_Action_Group . Thank you again. Neil F. Liversidge — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBirdNeil (talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @TBirdNeil, thanks for your message! I can't say I did a whole lot at Motorcycle Action Group but the article is on my Watchlist now so I'll be keeping an eye on it. Also, I've removed much of your message here because it ran afoul of our policies regarding outing and claims about living persons—which apply everywhere on Wikipedia, even on Talk pages. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia and please let me know if you have any questions! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks Woodroar, sincerely appreciated. TBirdNeil (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |
Comments
How dare you say I am being disruptive and suggesting I am edit warring. I have not been "edit-warring" I have returned to one page and this has opened up a furore from the other user that reverted my edit. That user has then moved to the admin page to tell tales.
- " And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. ".
Fact: I am not doing anything of the sort to get my own way, have actually checked this "edit warring"? Also, why are you suggesting I am doing this to get my own way? I have looked at the specific page and admited my mistake. Instantly the other user went to the page to reverse this and then had another go at me for not reverting my edit. But regardless of that you have saw fit to accuse me of edit warring and being disruptive and all I have done is try to make a point. A point I might add that has not been respected.Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Babydoll9799, if you had read the pages I linked, you'd understand why your behavior is disruptive. And now I see that you're canvassing at article, category, and user talk pages. I urge you to self-revert those before you get topic banned or blocked. Woodroar (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)