User talk:Rivercook

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Tacyarg (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi Rivercook! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what it is I'm supposed to do. I don't know who is reverting. Do you want incorrect information on the page I am correcting? How do I discuss a content dispute when I don't know who is doing it? And where do I go to discuss that with whom? If someone died on a certain day and I have the death certificate there is no consensus to reach. Can't you write to the other person who is doing the reverting as well? I would like to know who that is. Some idiot no doubt. Again there is nothing her to dispute. It's the problem with wikipedia as anyone can write anything even if it isn't true and then it becomes gospel. Rivercook (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to note. There will be a NY Times obituary with the correct information. I really don't want to play footsie here. I tried to put the day he was born in there too and it was removed. This is ridiculous. No one should believe anything that is on Wikipedia. Rivercook (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, you are correct that no one should blindly believe what is on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There are many reasons the information presented may not be accurate(I won't list them). Wikipedia is an information aggregator, summarizing what independent reliable sources say. These sources are provided in articles so readers can verify information.

I kinda answered your questions at the Help Desk, but I will do so again here. The main issue seems to be that the source currently in the article for the date of death supports the date you are trying to change. I'm guessing since the date is only a day off from what you say it is, it's likely a timing issue, perhaps your friend passed late at night and the source did not get the information until the next day. If a source given in an article is summarized accurately, but is in error, you will either need to contact that source directly to have them issue a correction(showing them the death certificate should do the trick, since you say you have it)- or provide a more up to date source with the correct information. If you say there will be a New York Times obituary with the correct information, that should suffice. In any event, please discuss your concerns on the article talk page, Talk:Peter Lamborn Wilson. Death certificates are primary sources and are not publicly available documents, so that is insufficient for Wikipedia purposes(again, though, you can show it to the source that is in error) If you continually readd the information withour providing an independent source, that is considered edit warring. I really do understand that this can be frustrating, but the requirement for sources is necessary. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times article was in the print edition on this past Tuesday, June 14. That should suffice. What you say is interesting however there has been someone who goes on to his page frequently and writes things that are not true. I do not know who this is so I can't address them. I will leave this and hopefully it will seek its own level and the date will change to reflect accuracy. I know when my friend passed. Legally a persons death date is always listed as when they were found, for your information. The person who is changing the information does not have a clue. Thank you for your comments. Rivercook (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the obituary in the NYTimes. It has the correct death date as May 23. This article still has the incorrect date of May 22. And you gave me a lot of grief for correcting it. I hope you can change it now. Rivercook (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]