Palming

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, Palming, 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
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! WilliamH (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WilliamH (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

List of nontheists

Hi Palming. Please don't forget to use edit summaries. They help your fellow editors keep track of changes. I noticed you removed Soros again from the List of nontheists. Please do not removed sourced material from Wikipedia without a good reason. If you can find a reliable source confirming that Soros now believes in God, then it would be appropriate to remove him. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wagoner County

Hey just wanted to say thanks for removing all those extra categories that didn’t belong there. I’ve done a lot of work to that page and never caught it. --CPacker (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

If you have NPOV sources that call it propaganda then put the category on the article. We have tons of sources calling Expelled propaganda. It fits the definition of propaganda. Two wrongs don't make a right, two rights don't make a wrong, and a wrong and a right are independent of each others Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The notion that the film is propaganda is an opinion, not a fact. Thus, referring to it as such is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is properly attributed as a quote from a reliable source. Referring to it as a propaganda in a matter-of-fact manner by describing it as such in the Intro is a violation of NPOV. Please stop introducing opinions in the article as fact. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream: your opinion is not shared by all. In short, it is not a violation of NPOV to be accurate, regardless of how little some may care for the terminology. The holocaust is routinely described as horrific, which is accurate, not a NPOV violation. Please work with your fellow editors to determine whether Expelled is, or is not, accurately categorized as propaganda and stop issuing orders regarding that issue to all and sundry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's "accurate" is precisely the point of conflict. The filmmakers would presumably argue that it's not propaganda, and critics would argue that it is. That is precisely why the article itself should not take a position on the issue, of which that category placement gives the appearance. This also applies to your Holocaust example. A Wikipedia article should not describe the Holocaust as such, except when attributing a quote to an expert on it, or arguably when relating the personal experience of someone who experienced it. But you would not find such a word like that used in say, the Intro of the article on the Holocaust. It doesn't need to. The three paragraphs of that article's Intro describe what the article is using dispassionate language, and without emotive language. Nonetheless, I'll ask for Third Opinion. Nightscream (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk: The God Who Wasn't There‎ rather than just reverting. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Randy Weaver

Dear user Palming: I notice that you have repeatedly added some pointed comments to the above-referenced article, comments that have been repeatedly removed by other editors (myself included).

Assuming arguendo that everything you have written is accurate, the material still violates Wikipedia policiesa and guidelines. You must find reliable, previously published third party sources that say what you say; you cannot simply add unsourced material yourself and try to justify the material on the grounds that it is true. Truth is not enough. Being right is not enough.

Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Reliable Sources, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Palming: I notice that you have continued to re-add the same unsubstantiated, inflammatory rhetoric to the article on Randy Weaver over the past several days, despite being reverted by me and various other editors.

You have also stated that your material is properly sourced. It is not.

The web page to which you linked does not even mention the word "racist" or "racism," much less state that Randy Weaver is a criminal racist.

Again, you must find reliable, previously published third party sources that say what you say; you cannot simply add unsourced material yourself, and try to justify the material on the grounds that it is true or correct. Believing that you are right, or even being right, is not enough.

If you continue with this line of tendentious editing after having been warned and after having repeatedly been pointed to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia (not by me, but by an administrator). Please review the Wikipedia policies and guideliness. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Here are some good links:

WP:Five pillars

WP:POL (official policy)

"Neutral Point of View": WP:Neutral point of view (official policy)

WP:Neutral_point of view/FAQ (official policy)

"Verifiability": WP:Verifiability (official policy)

"No Original Research": WP:No original research (official policy)

WP:Three-revert rule (official policy)

WP:Edit war (editing guideline)

Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Randy Weaver

Randy Weaver was acquitted on all charges except failure to appear in court, a minor infraction. The use of the term "racist criminal" is loaded and has a strong negative connotation.

If you want to point out that Randy Weaver had White Supremacist and/or racist views and have the appropriate sources, please feel free to do so by creating a section on it and using a neutral tone. For example, instead of saying "racist criminal" you could say that he was notable for his white supremacist views.

Damicatz (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear user Palming: I think if you will just do a little looking around, you may actually find material that can be used in the article on Randy Weaver. The key is that you must report what OTHER PEOPLE have written; you and I cannot, as Wikipedia editors, just insert our own unsourced beliefs into Wikipedia articles, even if those beliefs are correct. For example, you keep inserting the "racist criminal" veribage, yet the material you cite does not say that Weaver is a "racist criminal". There might or might not be other sources that DO SAY THAT, though. For example, if newspaper XXXX reported on such and such a date that such and such a person had contended that Weaver was a racist, Wikipedia could state, in the article, that the newspaper said that. Wikipedia cannot, however, just say what you obviously want Wikipedia to say in the way you want it said. Please re-read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Randy Weaver. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Famspear (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the edits I made are not like the ones I made before? --Palming (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Palming: What do you mean, specifically? Famspear (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

The recent edit you made to 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC))