User talk:Anonywiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....
Contents |
[edit] Triva section at Michelle Malkin
Hi. Can I suggest you take a closer look at The five pillars of Wikipedia? Wikipedia's rules explicitly forbid us from putting our opinions into articles. Instead, we should report what other people have stated, and even then only people who count as Reliable Sources. That trivia section did not fit in with the rules, and the editors who deleted it were quite right to do so.
Another important policy is WP:BLP.
I know that these rules can be a little quite tricky, but it's important for all of us to work at understanding and following them. Cheers, CWC 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chess
Hi, Thank you for creating the article on Vladimir Afromeev and other chess related contributions. I would like to invite you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess - it is a discussion site for chess-related articles.Voorlandt 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] September 2007
Please do not add unreferenced controversial information about living persons, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to violate Wikipedia policy regarding such content and have been reverted. Thank you. Ryan4314 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sega TeraDrive edit
I have noticed you have removed content from Sega TeraDrive describing such content as "questionable" and "obsolete". The fact is, the processor used was obsolete, as it was an Intel 80286 released in 1982, and the teradrive was released in 1991, 9 years later; a gap of 9 years certainly makes a processor obsolete. Granted, maybe not every component was obsolete as the text may have suggested to some, but it was far from being POV, which is evident by the factual release dates of the hardware. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Who says that a gap of 9 years makes a processor "obsolete"? I'm sure there are many examples of processors being sold in new products 9 years after their introduction. Regardless, the whole sentence is rather PoV to state almost as fact that that was the main reason it didn't do very well... again especially as it's a questionable PoV to have to begin with.
Put another way, what I'm trying to say is that PoV is bad, but if you need to put PoV at least make it "right" PoV and not one that is open to differences in opinion. :P Anonywiki (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I respect your views and I understand why you have that particular view. I am not going to readd the sentence just because I disagree, but I want to at least accept differences of opinion. When the machine was released, there had already been another 2 processors of that variant released, thus although the processor used was perfectly fine and in working order, the fact there had been 2 newer ones on the market, coupled with the one used being released long ago, it does make it obsolete, regardless of whether it was still in fact being sold or not. Now, you could argue that last sentence there is my POV; maybe it is, maybe it isn't - maybe that is generally accepted, maybe it isn't. Essentially though, I understand your point that POV can be interpreted as such by someone but as actual "way it is" by another. It's only for this reason why I am not rushing to readd the deleted content you removed. Regards! Bungle (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits
Hi. A couple of your recent edits have been reverted. On Eugenics, I myself reverted five of your edits, as they were completely original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, even if you put a {{fact}} template on it. On Psychiatry, someone else reverted your addition that it is a pseudoscience. No reason was given for the reversion, but I would have done so myself again under the original research line. It may be a pseudoscience (I won't take a stand on that right now), but without proper sources, it comes across as just your opinion. Just a heads-up in case you actually have reliable sources so that you could recreate the reverted additions. Cheers, and happy editing! -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
