User talk:CaptRik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, CaptRik, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Boat Race nomination at WP:ITN/R[edit]

Since you participated in the nomination of The 160th Boat Race at WP:ITNC, I am writing to let you know that you might like to participate in the following discussion at WP:ITN/R. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Catholicism article[edit]

Saw your comment to Sandstein on the neo-Catholicism article. I would be happy to talk to you about it.Circa Corleone (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will post my reasons for the various templates I added to article on it's talk page. Please do not remove them, until we have discussed. Thanks. CaptRik (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I did not remove your tags. I will no longer be involved in the editing process. I may defend the article if another effort is made to have it deleted as I have seen disturbing signs of political bias at work in deletion campaigns, including references to established traditional Catholic publications as "fringe hate groups." Ridiculous and childish stuff. I thought Wikipedia editing guidelines prohibited ad hominem arguments and name-calling, but the "guidelines" here seem curiously malleable. I have had enough of the process. I am curious, however. Which sources do you deem "unreliable" and why? I find use of the term "unreliable" here to be roughly equivalent to "not my cup of tea." Circa Corleone (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Further Comment: As I said, I am no longer involved in the editing process for this entry, but was wondering if you had reasons, and what they are, for posting the warning that some or all of the sources in the entry might be unreliable. Would you mind explaining this? I think it's a rather serious accusation and should be supported by evidence. Thank you.Circa Corleone (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Still Further Comment: Although I am not the one who removed your maintenance tag, you asked me to talk to you about it before any further removal. This is my third polite request to talk to you and obtain an explanation of why you put up a tag stating that some or all of the sources in the article I created are not reliable. Again, which sources and why? Also, I would like to know why the entry about this current in the Catholic Church is not notable when "Catholic traditionalism" is deemed notable and is also described as a "current." What is your basis for denying general notability, given that the Catholic Church and its affairs are by definition generally notable? Do you have any expertise in this area, or is it just that you personally think it is not notable? If you won't talk about these things, then I will reconsider my decision to abstain from further edits and will take down your maintenance tags myself if someone else doesn't. I don't think you have the right to hoist warning flags about an article and then provide no basis for them.Circa Corleone (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Regarding your flag concerning a contributor's "close connection" to the subject, the Wiki COI guideline does not define conflict of interest as "close connection" to the subject. Any expert on a subject who creates an initial article by definition is closely connected to the subject in which he has acquired expertise. Anyone is free to edit the article for any possible bias. What is your specific basis for citing the COI guideline? Again, if I cannot talk to you about this, as you yourself suggested, I must assume that collaboration is not possible and that the tag should be removed, even if others may edit the article.Circa Corleone (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)