User talk:Clappingsimon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i don't archive my talk page. "history" will allow you to read prior year discussions. wikis are neat :-)

[edit] annual log of removals

  • Removed all talk april 2006 - december 2006. [[1]] 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed all talk january 2007 - december 2007. [[2]] 11:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: You mention that something that Wikipedia requires "widely understood" quality of verifiables. That was not my understanding; do you have a reference for the "widely understood" requirement, if it is so. My sense is that people use an encyclopedia in order to find out verifiable things that indeed might not be "widely understood." I am looking for such discussion, but maybe you have that at your figertips. Thanks for the focus, attention, and time. Lift, Joe Joefaust (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clappingsimon, You wiping out several weeks of content construction that was loaded with verifiable sourcing and facts seems a bit strong. Still, so far, I find nothing in Wikipedia guides that forces that some fact must be "widely understood"...such a policy would take the purpose out of an information source that is aimed to help get what is not widely known to be known by users. I leave this open for now until such is clarified. Not one fact that I put up is unverifiable and I have been working nearly full time to get the citations; I invited you to help get citation for the verifiable; instead you deleted without pointing to precise items; that seems to be against Wikipedia guides:

"Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary. Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. " Wikipedia guide on resolving disputes.

I have been fully willing to explain any change that might puzzle you. Surely, some fact need not have to be known by you to be posted in an article; the guide is that something be verifiable...part of the five pillars. If you want some explanation, I am fully willing to explaing on a matter. Surely, the Kite article does not have to fit your POV or mine; if it were my POV, the article would be very different than even my posting; I have been brining in many people's POV, not just one. Please mention specific points before you delete; and please give some fair hang-on time for a matter.

There are some very incorrect and unverifiable things in the old matter revert that you just did; and it is poor of content compared to what Kite implicitely holds. For the moment, for kite sake, Joefaust (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to determine that if Encyclopedia Brit. publishes something that is false as fact, then should Wikipedia simply present the falsity as fact? Being in print in an encyclopedia does not make something fact; the way to present the matter would be to say that E.B. says something, but another source counters that reference, etc. Furthering false "factoids" does not seem to be the purpose of Wikipedia. There is no way that "2800 years ago the first kite was invented" is fact no matter how many sources repeat the false pseudo-fact. I have not yet seen the policy in W. for this matter. Joefaust (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)