User talk:Nonsenseferret

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

Tim Hunt[edit]

Hi. I'm looking for some help re the Tim Hunt page. It seems you don't have emails enabled. Is this the best place to ask?

Danwadd (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

the absolute best advice I can give you Dan is to steer well clear of directly editing the Tim Hunt article. I'm fully aware of the changes you would like to make on it, but I would say your plan is based on a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles should briefly summarise independent published reliable sources such as national broadsheet newspapers and peer reviewed academic journals. original research such as looking at primary unpublished sources such as blogs and twitter and statements from involved individuals is outside the scope of wikipedia and specifically excluded. Trying to use wikipedia to uncover the truth or promote one perspective isn't why it exists. Individuals who have a conflict of interest should be very wary of attempting to edit wikipedia, and there are specific provisions in wikipedias terms of use concerning this. That said, if you have specific recommendations to change the article then the article talk page is the best place to make that proposal and have it discussed by other less involved editors (click Talk at the top of the Tim hunt article to access that). It is worth reiterating that content will only be considered that adopts a neutral point of view and is based on independent reliable secondary sources. I hope this makes sense, happy to answer any questions you might have.--  17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thanks and I understand that. Believe me, the very last thing I want or need is to become involved. Neither do I have a 'plan,' nor am I trying to promote one perspective. But there is a lack of balance and a number of errors in there, which I'll bring up on the talk page, but even that is likely to attract some, er, attention. I take your point about 'independent reliable sources' but in this case there was a failure of some of those cited publications to produce reliable information. Is that to be included, even when it can be proven to be wrong, simply because it appeared in a national newspaper? Also, if it's the case that blogs from 'involved individuals' etc should not be cited, then why is Unfashionista? As you'll see on the talk page, Jimmy Wales has suggested that our article might be worth considering (independently of me, I add). At the moment it's quite a long way off the neutrality Wiki strives for. Surely the aim here is to give people a balanced view of the episode? Currently, it doesn't (and people will say 'You would say that,' but I'm by no means alone in that belief...).Danwadd (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As hard as it may be to believe, it is the case I'm afraid that if all reliable sources are "wrong" then wikipedia will reflect that "wrongness", see WP:NOTTRUTH. Time and time again people come to wikipedia trying to 'prove' the mainstream media has got it all wrong - it tends not to be a productive means of engagement. Jimbo has made no such comment about the article - he clearly is washing his hands of the substantive issues here, and claims not to have read the article you wrote and was recommended to him by a, as yet, unnamed individual. The Tim Hunt article as it stands is pleasing neither to you nor to those on the other side of the argument. That is a good sign in terms of neutrality. For what it's worth I don't think unfashionista should be used as a source and I have raised the question at the reliable sources noticeboard previously. I daresay further discussion on the article talkpage could find consensus to remove it. I would also say discussion on the talkpage is in my view more likely to find consensus for the removal of material rather than addition, as the current detail in that section is already fairly long and that would be in accordance with the principles of WP:NOTNEWS. --  23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't suggest all 'reliable' sources are wrong at all, just that some are in this case, demonstrably so. As an author and a journalist who finds it invaluable, I fully support any effort to maintain Wiki's accuracy and neutrality. But as an ex national newspaper reporter I'm also aware of how stories are spun, or created, or rushed into print with little sourcing or checking. It happens. So here we have articles cited as 'reliable', where the reporter has spoken to one person, who wasn't there, and yet our piece, where we spoke to 50 or so, many of whom were, is deemed unreliable. I hope you see my point, as you do re unfashionista. If our piece, and unfashionista, are not to be included than surely Cathy Young's polemic on Reason should also be discounted for the same reasons? A summary of our piece was published by Byline [1] and I'd argue that has as much legitimacy as Reason or those of its ilk. I referred to JWs comment not because I think he endorses our piece - he clearly doesn't - but the fact he suggests it for consideration would suggest he believes Medium to be worthy of consideration, and not dismissed out of hand. Otherwise, he would have ignored, no? Or told whoever brought it to his attention that as it was on Medium and self published it wasn't a reliable source. However, I'd argue our piece to this page is of value not in quoting or on citing, but in indicating that some of the more persistent myths, still on the page, should be removed. I agree with you: this shouldn't be about adding - it should be about clarifying and removing a number of misleading, unsourced and/or disputed statements. (Though I don't accept your point about the entry not pleasing either side of the argument - the inclusion of 'transcripts' and 'now seriously' etc would please one side immensely, when such issues are unproven or in dispute. Btw I'll bring this up on the talk page, but I've seen it said that Connie St Louis agreed TH said 'now seriously' - she 100% disputes that...) Danwadd (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ronnie Apteker concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ronnie Apteker, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ronnie Apteker[edit]


File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

Hello, Nonsenseferret. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Ronnie Apteker".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Kent (author)[edit]

Hello Nonsenseferret

I've just noticed that the bibliography and discography of the Jeff Kent (author) article were deleted on 28 May 2015 because of 'no independent sourcing'. Detailed independent sources for both are given in the main text of the article. Therefore it seems the bibliography and discography (which are commonplace in the articles on writers and musicians and frequently without detailed referencing) should be reinstated. Could you look into this, please?

Thanks. Snoobysoo (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)SnoobysooSnoobysoo (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you picked up my above message, Nonsenseferret? Thanks. Snoobysoo (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. I'm afraid I won't get a chance to respond at present, so i'm adding a help template and someone will be along in due course to assist with the article about you. Best regards, --  00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, what is it you need help with? SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)