Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Tmore3! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Philippe Beaudette06:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Precisely which of those sources are you in such opposition to? Also, WP:SPS is not really applicable here. Which sources do you see falling under that banner? GlassCobra20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please stop edit warring on this article, and removing most of it's content. After reviewing it, it would seem that WP:SPS is not applicable here — the information within the article isn't violating BLP in any way, that I can tell. If you've got a problem with the articles content, rather than edit warring which could lead to blocks, you should try discussing the disputes with the concerned user(s). As a side note, you're nearing a violation of the three-revert rule. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
If I may add my two cents, here, for a second. I was sorting through the 3RR reporting page and noticed this and found it interesting. Allow me to clarify the points. I believe the reason Rjd0060 warned you instead of GlassCobra, well, frankly because, technically you can't report someone to the 3RR page until after they've broken the rule, but you reported him before. You were both close to breaking the rule, but GlassCobra clearly expressed interest in stopping as to not break the rule, whereas you did not. I believe that's why he warned you instead.
Now onto the issue at hand. I have to agree that here WP:SPS is not applicable. This is because, well, that particular guideline specifically points out that someone can claim to be an expert in a particular field, but what field is a biography? Anyone can tell their life's story without having to be an expert, and that guideline also says in some cases that those sources can be trusted. This is one of those cases, because it is a biography article, and information is being pulled from a biography on a website. I will re-state that you do not have to be an expert to write a story about your life. As for WP:BURDEN not applying to GlassCobra, it certainly does, but he provided the sources, you're just refusing them without thinking. Wikipedia requires 50% guideline, 50% judgment, 100% common sense. --The Guycomplainedits02:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I thought I should make sure there were no misunderstandings regarding my edit and your subsequent edit. In my edit summary I wrote, "added footnote that follows the precedent of a similar footnote at the end of the 2nd paragraph of WP:SYN"
The existing footnote at the end of the 2nd paragraph of WP:SYN that I referred to was,
"The rule against "A and B therefore C" does not, in general, refer to statements A,B and C that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic." See also, WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence"
In your edit summary you wrote, "WP:SYN makes no such statement". I didn't understand this comment since in my edit summary, the "similar footnote" that I was referring to in WP:SYN was the above footnote, which is currently footnote 2.
If you care to respond, I would be happy to monitor your talk page here for your response, so that our discussion is not fragmented. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello, before your edit I was not aware of the footnote you cited for WP:SYN prior to your adding of an additional one to the top of the policy page. The reason I reverted it is I didn't see the discussion and consensus to add it but more importantly could not find any statements in WP:SYN that supported original footnote. Since I didn't have any previous background on how the first one was added I didn't want to address that one until getting a better grasp of when and how it was originally added. After going back through the archives it appears to have been added relatively recently (September of this year) and going back to late August I was unable to find any clear consensus that eventually developed for it's inclusion in current form. I have since removed it to avoid any confusion unless/until some kind of clear agreement can be found for it. Best, Tmore3 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
