Jump to content

User talk:HMSSolent

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Catgirl267 (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 15 June 2013 (→‎A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave a message here under a new section. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)

Any personal attacks, derogatory comments and legal threats will be ignored. Editors may remove such comments at their discretion.

I will generally respond here, if the message requires a satisfactory and significant answer - otherwise, I may be compelled to reply on your talk page.

≥== sandbox == I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Aileen Wuornos, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake,... REPLY: Aileen Wuornos is not a living person. She's dead - executed in October 2002. Why do you content she;s alive? Why do you dispute my contribution? Elizabeth1848

I would like to experiment. How do I use the sandbox?? 24.0.205.73 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:SANDBOX. - Amaury (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hills Hi, I noticed you undid my edits to Titanic 2. Actually I feel what I edited was right and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Hills (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel HillsI highly doubt that it is indeed true, provided that you did not cite a reliable source for it. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 16:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair, I apologise for wasting your time. I am the Hoarse Foreman; My throat hurts. 13:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chick tract

Thank you for your notification. I wanted to ask you a question: Why is there allowed to be the criticisms of Jack Chick and his tracts on his "Chick tract" page, but nobody is allowed to put testimonies of people that like Chick tracts, and were positively affected by them? Why must we focus solely on the negative? Shouldn't it be two-sided? George W. Bush's page isn't all just about how he took the US into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, why must the Chick tract page be just about the criticisms? If criticism is allowed, positive testimonies should be, as well, no? Hjurgelis (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Hjurgelis[reply]

Some of the testimonies may not derive from a reliable source. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The testimonies were written by the people that benefited from Chick's ministry. I don't see how the person affected is not a reliable source for their own testimony. Also, I did source them on the page. I think that this is a pretty good example of something that I said to another mod about how the "Chick tract" page is negatively biased toward Jack Chick. Hjurgelis (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Hjurgelis[reply]

You've copied and pasted those testimonials directly from Chick's website without permission. Copyright violation. Thou shalt not steal and all. Czolgolz (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced the testimonies. I didn't violate a copyright. I wasn't stealing. If what I did by siting testimonies is wrong (and sourcing them from the chick.com website), then everyone that sources anything on wikipedia.org is stealing and infringing on copyrights. This argument is so flawed that I don't even know what else to say. There is an obvious bent against Jack Chick and his tracts. The testimonies balance the page out, considering the fact that half the page is on criticisms of him and the tracts. The testimonies deserve/should be there just as much as the criticism and the pop-culture sections. If those can be there the testimonies should be there too. And, unless someone can give me a REAL reason for criticism to be there but not testimonies then I will continue to repost it onto the page. Hjurgelis (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Hjurgelis[reply]

Re: apparent vandalism of Warehouse Group page

"offering these products at exceptionally low prices" is not factual. Yes, it is part of their marketing campaign, but that does not make it truth. If you don't like my apparent vandalism, do you mind changing that section to something that does not advertise The Warehouse's marketing strategy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.30.15 (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism - the only issue being that commentaries do not belong in Wikipedia articles - at least, if they do not meet WP:NPOV. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you recommend changing this line - "The Warehouse has been criticised for poor products despite offering these products at exceptionally low prices." - to be less biased towards The Warehouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.30.15 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better, but ensure that you cite a reliable source that satisfies WP:RS. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment quoted is the original. I have decided that my contribution is to remove "exceptionally low prices" and mild rephrasing. There is no evidence to prove that Warehouse sells it's products at lower prices than competitors, as hinted to by "exceptionally low prices."

Therefore, "The Warehouse has been criticised for poor products despite offering these products at exceptionally low prices. The Warehouse has had product recalls of items they exclusively sell."

becomes "The Warehouse has been criticised for poor products and has had product recalls of items they exclusively sell."

Regards Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.56.127 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to provide a reliable source for it. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shag (artist) picture change

You had changed back the image for the page on the artist, Shag. My reasoning behind changing it was because the current picture is seven years old, does not reflect the artist's current appearance, and it is, as a whole, a completely outdated picture. Sorry for arguing against your edit, I just feel that the new picture would better illustrate who the artist is.

Congratulations from STiki!

The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, HMSSolent! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

A kitten for you!

Thanks for looking at my lousy info... sorry bout that.

Catgirl267 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HMSSolent&oldid=560062839"