Jump to content

User talk:Aspening

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.121.190.11 (talk) at 20:18, 20 February 2019 (→Berkeley Free Speech Movement: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user does not accept WikiLove in any way, shape or form.

Click here to start a new discussion.


You removed my modification

"Hello, I'm Aspening. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Caravan Palace have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Aspening (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)"

Hi Aspening,

I'm the new Caravan Palace' saxophonist, please reput the links I put or let me do the modification again.

Best,

Victor Raimondeau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Raimondeau (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Raimondeau: Please have a look at Wikipedia's external link policy. The link that you inserted seemed like it was to a personal web page, which is against Wikipedia policy and therefore not allowed. Additionally, since you say that you are affiliated with the band, please review the conflict of interest policy. Aspening (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changes

http://defamoghaddas.ir/fa/fight/%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%B1 This is the page that prove my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arefakbari1378 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please use inline citations to cite your source, and most importantly, make sure it is a reliable source. It's not in English, so I can't tell if it's reliable or not. Aspening (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von Ormy, TX Wikipedia Page Addition

Hello! You messaged me saying that I didn't provide a source for my recent edit. Unfortunately, I am terrible at coding things like that. I have a link to the article I referenced in the edit, and it is below:

https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/?fbclid=IwAR2XN6Nk41XL48Lqe8TeePZv2KbdxrcSZrPcptEo2v7acnpRuDGe0csPqmU

Is there any resource I can use to learn how to properly cite sources for Wikipedia?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.83.122 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I would recommend using the visual editor, since you are not very familiar with wiki markup. This is a useful guide to entering and using the visual editor. In the visual editor, use the "Cite" button to create a citation. You can either automatically create a citation or manually enter the information you need. Aspening (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hello, thank you for your message. I was unaware of the guidelines about a Conflict of Interest. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. All the best. PePenni Jo (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)nni Jo[reply]

No problem Aspening (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Free Speech Movement

Hello there, I saw you deleted my added information and would like you to consider that those facts were indeed true and History is not "neutral". What happened was true, and the facts of history should not be swept under the rug to remain "neutral". I understand your concern, however, neutrality is not kind to human knowledge. All the facts must be presented. Truth must be stated for historical facts to be reliable. Thank you. ~Prudence

Please have a look at Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. All contributions to Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Aspening (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality on the Berkeley Free Speech Movement

The Wikipedia page on neutrality states that the information must not be biased, and must display both sides equally. I believe both sides should be displayed equally, however, neutrality on the Free Speech Movement page seems to only display one viewpoint, rather than give both sides. I think it changed from being neutral, and displaying both sides, to stepping on eggshells, as it were, to avoid triggering someone. I believe the neutrality statement would allow for my segment of information, because it displays another side to the facts. Thank you for your insight. ~Prudence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.190.11 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples of where you think the existing article does not display both sides equally. On the contrary, I believe that what you inserted shows blatant bias towards one side. There is a difference between talking about different points of view and endorsing a particular point of view. Aspening (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Free Speech Movement

After reading more of the article, I see how it is neutral, and it does display both sides to an extent. But my "blatant bias", I believe, is just stating the facts, and I would like to know where exactly it is biased, so as to edit it accordingly. ~Prudence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.190.11 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found the phrases "Then soon the Free Speech Movement became the Dirty Speech Movement, in which freedom was seen as shouting four-letter words into a mike" and "the hippie world of drugs" to be overly negative. Also, the source cited (How Should We Then Live?) seems like it could have some bias, though I wasn't able to look at it directly. Aspening (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Free Speech Movement

Ok. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aspening&oldid=884304122"