User talk:Connectingtosource

November 2018[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

In the changes I made on the Teal Swan page, I tried to be as neutral as possible, although I might have unconsciously added a subjective perspective, thus I would like to know what should be changed in order to make it more objective Connectingtosource (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

If my content was completely wrong (especially the infobox which was certainly subjective, as well as the biography), then I understand your perspective. I will no longer change the page. However, I am confused as to why the content inutially published is right, for it is in the same way based on the blogs written by others, but it only relates to the controversy made around her, the only thing wikipedia accepts apparently. Therefore, why should my content have been completely dismissed? Thank you in advance. Connectingtosource (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary, "Wikipedia bios aren't for channeling their subjects' own messages and parroting their websites. That's what their websites are for. WP:NPOV." Articles here are objective, don't glorify or admire, and don't use WP:PEACOCK language and WP:PUFFERY. That's apart from the question of whether the current state of the article is questionable. Largoplazo (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have assumed my edit was completely biased. It is true that I should not have completely deleted the initial form, for the controversy exists. However, some aspects of my change are not subjective, such as the watkins list reference (which by deleting you seem not to be willing for it to be there purposefully), the infobox(!), part of biography and teachings(also present on wikipedia pages of other spiritual teachers). Thus, I believe we should be considering both sides and not delete aspects which are not subjective.

Regarding "considering both sides," see WP:GEVAL.

The Satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory was largely found to be subjective by mainstream psychiatry, nonexistent by law enforcement, and a Yellow journalism-fueled mass hysteria by historians.

Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. The conspiracy theorist blog about Project Monarch was not an acceptable source and should not have been restored without being replaced with something better. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You see nothing of the sort, since I said absolutely nothing about your frame of mind or any assumptions I was making about it. I saw what you'd written. And since you'd also removed material that didn't seem right to remove, instead of feeling obligated to pick through what you'd written and restore what you'd removed and then make sure it all worked together in a cohesive fashion, I reverted your edits. If you want to go back and integrate objective, reference-quality material attributable to secondary sources into what's there, that's fine. And I do see now that I removed the infobox, which I ought to have left there.

Other than that, please do not fork conversations into multiple places. It's inconvenient to have answered your note on my talk page only to find that you'd also written it here. Largoplazo (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you needn't have answered it once again. I understood what you have said on your page Connectingtosource (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did need to because at least one other person was following the discussion here and not responding would have left the impression that I hadn't answered, let alone let them know what my response was. Largoplazo (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few problems with your last few revisions:

Blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. Stick to professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources, as I said before.
Do not add claims that are not supported by sources. The claims about Swan going to China were not supported in the slightest by speedskatingrecords.com (which is just some guy's personal site). That that was cited for that makes me worry about the rest of the citations (which I'll have to go through later).
All claims about living people must be reliably sourced when added. [[WP:BLPNAME|We generally avoid naming family members who are not notable, especially children!
Avoid adding links to places where you buy stuff, like Amazon.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. However, some of the existent sources seem to be also people's blogs, for instance medium.com, which I intended to remove throughout the article. The links to amazon have not been added by me. Connectingtosource (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in "career" states "according to the website". In this case, why is a citation needed? In the article there are passages in which an information is presented from her perspective or that of critics. Connectingtosource (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really?[edit]

You're going to tell people that they "cannot remove it by choice from a wikipedia page that should be contributed to, not removed information from" after your prior whitewashing attempts?

You don't see the hypocrisy in that?

Also: don't mark your edits as minor when they're not, it only comes across as trying to avoid scrutiny. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]