Gimmemoretime
Hello, Gimmemoretime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Introduction- 5 The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help
Tips
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Fun stuff...
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The 100
editI noticed your removal of references to The 100 from several articles. I understand your intention; you feel that that book is just a personal opinion. But your way is not the best way to go about it. As long as the article The 100 exists, it makes sense to link to it. You may instead consider proposing that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you decide to do so, please feel free to mention that I recommended this to you; people sometimes may get a bit suspicious with new editors. — Sebastian 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR. If I say someone is "The greatest inventor," that is personal opinion and OR. If someone publishes a book, from an established publisher and in large numbers, rather than from a vanity publisher or from some rabid biased source, it should be judged as to whether it is a reliable source. Some such will be and others will not. There is a reliable source noticeboard where other editors can help arrive at a community decision regarding a particular source. If some scholar or authority says something in a book, it is not automatically legitimate for me to remove it from an article just because it is "personal opinion." I have seen some disagreement from others with your series of deletions of this particular book, regarding which I have no really strong opinion, so it is not clear at this time that there is a consensus to remove all reference to it. Some lists of "greatest inventions," "greatest battles," etc are indeed of little value. But they are not to be unilaterally and arbitrarily removed if from a published work, as opposed to a blog. In sum, please take the article The 100 toWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or to AFD rather than unilaterally de-linking it without consensus. Edison (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sebastian and Edison, thanks for your suggestions, which sound very reasonable. I'll think about it. One of the many problems is: Being on Hart's questionable list is no "award" but may actually potentially damage the reputation of person X in the eyes of those who think X should rank much higher. I feel Wikipedia should not support this. Gimmemoretime (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- That concern applies to any top n list that is not entirely based on measurable, undisputed criteria. Maybe you do believe that we should remove anything that isn't entirely based on objective criteria, but that in itself would be your subjective belief, which is probably not carried by majority consensus here. — Sebastian 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any published book can be referenced here. And any subject that exists can be considered worthy of an article. There are articles on wikipedia about all sorts of opinions and theories, some sensible and some quite stupid. You don't have to agree with something in order for it to have a page. Amandajm (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)