User talk:Woodroar
This is Woodroar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
|
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I know, I'd never heard of Brendan O'Neill until I saw the recent thread on RSN. He does appear to meet our notability requirements so I'm glad that the article exists. What I care about most is that the article complies with all of our policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to claims about living persons. That includes requiring top-tier sources for claims that are controversial or negative, balancing the weight of sources, and fairly summarizing what reliable sources say. I have no problem removing poorly-sourced controversial/negative claims from articles about people I dislike, or, for that matter, removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles about people I like. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied at Talk:Brendan O'Neill (columnist). Going forward, please use the article talk page for all discussions about the article. Woodroar (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Too confusing with the YouTube source on the Alexa Nikolas page
[edit]I was bummed when you reverted my edit on the Alexa Nikolas page when I said I had proof that Alexa's middle name is Helen. If you reverted my edits, then why are there YouTube sources on that page. Go check them out on that page. Chidie345 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I found out that it had nothing to do with the sources. It was the documents. Technically, Alexa just censored her home address on her restraining order document to keep it private. Chidie345 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- For our purposes, it really doesn't matter if she censored one thing and not another. On Wikipedia, we simply can't use documents like that to support claims about living persons. I urge you to read through our policy on content about living persons if you're going to be editing articles about them. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)