Jump to content

User talk:JHobson2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightscream (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 10 May 2013 (→The Courtiers' Reply: Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, JHobson2, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Brianhe (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, I'm Bobrayner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Deregulation seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Society of Literature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frances Wilson and Maggie Gee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtiers' Reply

Please do not add your own personal opinions, comments or analyses to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to The Courtier's Reply. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here, and that includes material that constitutes an opinion. While adding sourced opinions of notable persons in a way that accurately reflects mainstream views is acceptable, adding one's own opinions to articles is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the topic is controversial, or whether you feel you were justified is irrelevant. Wikipedia content is governed by various policies and guidelines intended to ensure its quality, and one of those, quite reasonably, is that editors do not add their own personal viewpoints to articles. I'm going to assume that regardless of how often you like to edit here, that you agree that it's reasonable for editors to be expected to comply with those policies, and that the project would suffer if they did not. If you agree with all of this (and feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong), then I assume that you must understand that the controversial nature of a topic does not justify violating that policy, since it is precisely those articles with controversial topics where that policy is most relevantly applied. To say that you were justified in violating that policy because the topic was controversial is a non sequitur.
The bottom line is, the only opinions we can add to articles are those that are sourced to reliable, secondary sources, paraphrased accurately, and with proper weight. This is why "A certain percentage of critics on Rotten Tomatoes didn't like this film, and here's the link to that" is acceptable, but "My dead cat could make a better movie than that director" is not. If you cannot follow this policy, and persistently ignore warnings after violating it (and I notice that this is at least the second time since February that you've been warned for doing so), then you risk being blocked from editing. I would rather avoid that happening, so if you have questions about that or any other polices, feel free to ask me about them. And if you think I've misapplied them, and think my words don't reflect the consensus of the community, then feel free to ask around, or even report me to others. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if that "someone else" is considered a reliable source in the field in question, and a citation can be provided to support their stated viewpoint. All material on Wikipedia must be derived from reliable, published sources. It cannot be derived from the personal knowledge or opinions of editors, since that's original research. That's a fundamental policy, and I assume you would agree that that's a valid one, correct? Nightscream (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you two questions.
Do you or do you not agree that all editors on Wikipedia should adhere to the site's various policies and guidelines, in particular the most fundamental policies designed to ensure the quality of its material and the effective collaboration of its editors? Yes or no?
Do you or do you not agree that in order for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be of any value to users, that it must restrict itself to relying on information from reliable published sources, and that per the site's Neutrality Policy, contributing editors should not use Wikipedia as a platform to voice their own personal opinions? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't you answer the two questions I asked you above? Why is it that whenever I attempt to explain the fundamental policy that Wikipedia material must be derived from sources that are considered reliable in the field in question, you refuse to answer, or even acknowledge the point?
You want me to "be specific", even though you refused to answer my questions first? Why? If you're not capable of comprehending the fact that this site is governed by policies and guidelines, or even responding directly to others' questions or statements, then there's nothing I can do to resolve your confusion.
Please answer the two questions I asked you above, and let me know what you think of the wisdom of those policies. If you don't, then there's no point in continuing this back-and-forth with you. Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHobson2&oldid=554484114"