User talk:Onorem/Archive 2

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006

Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page.
Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end.
I will reply here unless you request I reply on your talk page.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

From 89.241.186.226

YOU TOLD ME TO EDIT SANDBOX!!! SO I DID!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.186.226 (talk • contribs).

Editing Wikipedia

Wikipedia is so confusing, all I want to do is add little bits there, and change little bits there, and it keeps getting deleted!!! - comment left by 1066seagull on user page

Apparent vandalism

Hey wikifidler, in momma's basment... don't you have any thing better to do with you self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.184.133 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for stopping by. --Onorem 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fallen Sword

Ok then what should I be putting in as references? I wrote the article from my own knowledge of the game so there aren't any references other than the game itself! --Overklokan 16:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article needs some reliable sources. I haven't had a chance to look through all the external links yet...(the second I clicked on came up with a virus warning, so I'm not going through the rest while I'm at work.) You need to provide links to 3rd party sites that talk about why Fallen Sword is notable. --Onorem 16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anshe Chung

I have no desire to get in the middle of what appears to be a fun little edit war going on there, but I just wanted to point out that message boards aren't reliable sources, and even if they were...the ones found at forums.secondlife.com require registration. Everything using these forums as a reference really should have something more reliable. --Onorem 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)(from mixvio's talk)

Thanks for the comments! :) As per Wikipedia policy, forums and sites that require registration can be used as sources provided they're requested in the talk page; I can then cut and paste the relevant topics into the talk page until everyone has read it and then remove them once the source is verified. No one asked though, they just started deleting. :) I'll have it noted that several of the anonymous accounts are sockpuppets of the user "The Prophit," who runs a business in SL that is financed by Anshe Chung. The forum entries themselves go into great detail, back and forth between accusers and Anshe herself, into the various complaints. Nothing I put up there is denied much, even by Anshe herself, in-world. - mixvio 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is it that says that? Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. If message boards and forums can be considered reliable sources, I have a lot of apologizing to do for removing sourced information. --Onorem 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)(from mixvio's talk)

That guideline says they shouldn't be used as secondary sources. I was using them as primary ones. I don't know about other forums you might've come across, but LL's forums are actually very accurate, because they actively delete and patrol unverified complaints. They also have a very strong policy of making it against the rules to "name names" in disputes, so the forum entries I referenced are only ones that existed because someone posted the complaints without naming Anshe, and Anshe herself came and responded to them. I'm having trouble finding the specific guideline that says to link sources requiring registration in the talk page and then delete, but when I find it I'll update this. - mixvio 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, that Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims. And again, I just want to say that I have no interest in this specific case, but just policy in general. I'll be just as happy either way if I learn something from our discussion. --Onorem 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)(from mixvio's talk)

I would agree with you, but when it comes to the identity of someone who participates in a virtual world, I don't think it's fair to just outright discount said virtual world forums. The mainstream media sources are used whenever possible, but they unfortunately haven't begun to touch on the complaints because most are just fed the press releases handed to them without doing a lot of investigation. I was trying to make the entry more balanced by pointing out the fact that she's widely regarded as a crook by most people who come into contact with her. And contrary to common belief, I've never met her before so I have no vendetta. :) - mixvio 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, I'm not going to get involved in the edit war. I do want to say that I completely disagree with your choice of sources. It's not our job to make sure articles are balanced. It's our job to keep a neutral point of view using the reliable sources we have available to us. These sources should be only of the highest quality when discussing living persons. Primary sources should only be used when they are published by reliable secondary sources. I'm going to try to avoid this article for a bit, but thank you for the discussion. --Onorem 12:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)(from mixvio's talk)

Your AFD of 4649

Hi! You recently listed 4649 at WP:AFD. I just thought you should know that redirects have their own special place for discussions (e.g. for deletion), and it can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Hope that helps! Cheers! Budgiekiller 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops...I did know that. I need to stop editing late at night and early in the morning. I haven't listed at RfD before. Does the process work the same there? --Onorem 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! MER-C has already closed your WP:AFD so perhaps you'd like to relist it in the WP:RFD section. By the way, check this - and also have a look in Wiktionary here, it should explain what the term means. I would suggest that we just add 4649 to the list of slang internet terms. Cheers! Budgiekiller 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"pleased to meet you", "hi" - hmm...not sure how that makes any sense at all... Oh well. I hadn't had any luck finding anything about 4649 as a slang term. Thanks again. --Onorem 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to brush up on Japanese! Seriously, I would guess, given Wiktionary's def, the Japenese symbols may relate to the numbers, or similar. Oh well, live and learn! 4649! Budgiekiller 13:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Believe is garbage

Someone was snipped as a baby and doesn't like knowing that one of the foreskin's functions is to help pleasure a woman. Well, I can't climax if the guy I am with is cut. Besides, it is a fact. It was first called Foreskin Neuron Gliding Action Stimulation. Go cry on your mom's shoulders if it makes you that mad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woodstock2010 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

IT IS BELIEVED BY SOME

IT IS BELIEVED BY SOME THAT FORESKIN HELPS A WOMAN ORGASM. Like the group I used to be a part of MOTHERS AGAINST CIRCUMCISION. Also, NOCIRC and NOHARM. Someone's beliefs is not in dispute. That's like saying you can't prove someone BELIEVES in Jesus. If I believe in Jesus then at least ONE PERSON DOES. Many people know about gliding action. Go complain to your mother for slicing off part of your genetalia if its that big of a deal to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woodstock2010 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Yoko Onorem

It is believed by some that foreskin helps a woman climax. I know it helps me. Why are you taking this so persoanlly? Are you circumcised? That's the only thing I can think. Circumcised men are insecure when hearing about gliding action.