Jump to content

User talk:69.141.101.226

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


May 2024[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Terrence Howard have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Terrence Howard was changed by 69.141.101.226 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.881724 on 2024-05-24T16:45:11+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Terrence Howard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it important to protect the sanctity of Math and Science? This delusional narcissist can mouth off random pseudo-scientific world-salad-like garbage, and it must stay openly available to the lay public? 69.141.101.226 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...I don't know, but adding labels like "narcissist" or "delusional" evidently violates the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies. Personal attacks shouldn't remain on the article. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding behind rules? Bill Maher said it best about this new breed of anti-science nut-jobs (to megan kelly)- "You clearly are that kind of a person who looks at an elephant and a mouse and can't tell which one is bigger" - my respect for Wikipedia is taking a nose-dive. 69.141.101.226 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't know what you're trying to say. In a lot of cases, a widely hated person often has a neutrally worded article without such labels, even when the main contributors personally dislike (or strongly dislike) them. Wikipedia is just not the place for those things. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To exemplify, Wikipedia's article on David Irving notes his conspiracy theories about WWII, but doesn't have labels like "narcissist" or "delusional". It's just saying that his theories are fringe, period. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear where Wikipedia is going, especially in the light of the rising anti-science sentiments, where there is no gap between opinion and fact. If a famous person makes demonstrably false claims, or even worse in this case, taints well-established, umpteenth time verified scientific facts with his own cultish mumbo-jumbo, I strongly feel Wikipedia should clearly label it. Wikipedia has a moral duty to safeguard honest, intellectual discourses against the virus of anti-establishment rhetoric spewed by cult-leader-wannabe figures like terence, especially since they have a large platform; having a larger bullhorn does not necessarily mean what he says is not harmful to publicly available educational literature.
It is our duty to mock, ridicule and ostracize from civil society the cancer that is terence. 69.141.101.226 (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wikipedia's purposes is to present knowledge in a "just-the-facts style". Articles should be straightforward; if reliable sources counter his claims, the article should show their refutal. If a source ridicules it though, the article can present it with attribution. The article states, for instance: "Michelle Del Rey, writing for The Independent, characterized Howard's beliefs as 'bizarre' and 'outlandish'."
We have no duty to make ad hominem attacks in our own voice. We have a duty to present the facts and let the readers think for themselves. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.141.101.226&oldid=1225517568"