User talk:Sapientia abhorreo imprudentia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page. If you a curious about my posting replies on this page, you can see my explanation here.
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject Anti-Stub
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-Stub. General Eisenhower 20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signature
Your current signature looks quite cool, but could you arrange it to link to your user page, talk page or both? It makes things much handier. Palmiro | Talk 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. I forgot to add the link earlier, thank you for pointing it out. s»abhorreo»i 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hamas Article
No, it was directed at Bertilvidet's revert with summary: militant deleted - on talk page everyone seem to agree it is aweasel word. —Aiden 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Username
The gray text is copied from Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg's userpage.
Hi, I was just passing by and had to ask... Is your username really a real name? Curiously, s»abhorreo»i 10:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I too think that your username is quite something. I realise it's not your real name (nobody's parents could have such a cruel sense of humour, surely :-). But would love to know how you chose it! Nomist 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I make it up because Moshe is a Hebrew name, Constantine is a Christian name, Hassan is an Islamic name, and Al-Silverburg is Westernized Jewish name made to sounds somewhat arabic. Although I am actually just Jewish.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, I figured it was something like that :) s»abhorreo»i 06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nick Backay
The gray text is copied from Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg's userpage.
Hi. I noticed your edit on the Nick Bakay article. I was wondering if you happened across that article by chance, or if you looked into my contribs? 
s»abhorreo»i 08:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I really can't think of how I came across that article, I guess I just noticed the picture was too fuzzy because of the low resolution.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Really? It's interesting that our paths would cross on 2 completely different subjects by chance, especially on an article as obscure as that one. Thanks for the info. s»abhorreo»i 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually you know what, I think I saw the picture upload under your edit count here- [1] .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ahh, thats makes mores sense. s»abhorreo»i 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] God what?
Hi! No, actually there was no irony involved at all, I was really thanking you for pointing out that Godsquirrel might also not be respecting NPOV... and finds it quite strange that in a page where many "politically aware" people are supposed to be, none considers that calling oneself "death to all soviets!" is not a breach of NPOV. That's it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simpsons movie
Can we please discuss the issue and come to a conclusion on the talk page before making any changes to the article? I think avoiding an edit war is in everyone's best interest... Thanks si»abhorreo»T 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Would you like to explain to me how the speculation section isn't original research? Xubelox 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- As I see it, it simply doesn't fall into the category of original research as defined at WP:NOR. Perhaps you could tell me how it does? si»abhorreo»T 05:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""
Well, it's a theory that has not been published by a reliable source. aintitcool obviously isn't reliable as it first states it to be a scoop before then saying it's just a theory. Not to mention that speculation is strongly discouraged anyway.
No matter how logical it may sound, it's completly unprovable, and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. Fans in Simpsons forums can discuss it all they want there, but not here. Xubelox 05:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, they do say its a theory and a "scoop", and therefor it's noted in the article. The question is "is antitcool a reliable source?" Personally, I think that it is for this situation, but in any case you'll note that that I previously mentioned that you could make a case against the aintitcool part. What I am mainly dealing with here is the other two pieces of information, and that subsection as a whole. They are not original research, and I object to you removing them on the grounds that they are. si»abhorreo»T 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't responded in a while. Anyways, how is it a reliable source if they openly admit that it is speculation on their part (not to mention the section of the article is called speculation)? Besides, they don't even tell where they got their "scoop" from. The fact that it even says that it could turn out to not be the story at all makes the entry unencyclopediatic. It IS original research in the sense that it is proposing theories which at this point, are completely unprovable and purely speculative. And if you can admit anything at all, it must be that Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Besides, aintitcoolnews has proven in the past that it is not above spreading and starting rumours based on their own analyses. Xubelox 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- First, I would appreciate if you would address the other pieces of "speculation" and the speculative subsection as a whole. You haven't answered any part of what I said other then the part about aintitcool. In regard to the aintitcool bit... "Original research" applies to the Wikipedian adding the information to the article. Using someone else's research from an external source isn't. Yes it is speculative research on their part, and that's why its defined as speculative in the Wikipedia article. However, like I said, there is indeed a case against it (as the question is, "is antitcool a reliable source?"), and if you remove just the aintitcool part, I personally will stand back and not revert it, although others might. si»abhorreo»T
[edit] Simpsons
Please stop removing the indefinite section from the The Simpsons Movie article. I believe it meets Wikipedia guidelines for content, and strongly object to you removing it without first gaining consensus on the talk page. I will continue to revert your unsubstantiated deletions until this is discussed. si»abhorreo»T 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING until we reach consensus on the matter. Leaving a message on my talk page to discuss it is good, but don't go and start deleting things without waiting for a response. Now, I saw you agreeing with what Xubelox. Perhaps you can see where he and I left off on discussing this issue (when he dropped the issue) on his talk page, and if you still disagree, we can continue from there. I look forward to resolving this si»abhorreo»T 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sillygostly, you are not judge jury and excecutioner. You must prove your point and abide by Wikipedia guidelines before acting on a contested issue. Please don't escelate this. si»abhorreo»T 06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC
Frankly, neither are you, and I believe you are taking this far too personally for your own good. I have only retained information that is reliable. The "scoop" has no place in Wikipedia. Sillygostly 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is also only one person supporting it's removal, and if you look at what happened a bit earlier today, you will see that a second user, user:Scorpion0422 also reverted your changes. The fact that it's 2v1 doesn't neccesaraly change anything, consensus still needs to be reached before changing the current state of the article, eg, deleting the section. si»abhorreo»T 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you'll note in this [2] section of the talk page, I agree that that part might not be appropriate. What I am objecting to is you removing it without gaining consensus first. At the very least, this is something that needs to be discussed first. si»abhorreo»T 07:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revert
You said in this edit summary that I had reverted an edit of yours before. The only edit of yours that I have reverted is your revert of my edit; I didn't realise you had removed the information I edited before. JDtalk 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
