User talk:Vancewilson

Welcome!

Hello, Vancewilson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edgar Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

on text from Edgar Smith's non-fiction book along with information from newspaper accounts (various source periodicals with dates between March, 1957 and the end of 1978, and a section of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Smith

a WP:RS - "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

When you write, "A conceivably doubtful source of information exists concerning Edgar Smith's early life in the form of a non-fictional book that the criminal wrote in 1968 entitled "Brief Against Death". Since Smith is a convicted murderer and is guilty of perjury, his written account although possibly truthful, is arguably less than 100 percent reliable as factual data.", this becomes a poorly sourced material. Wikipedia is about facts and not what might be.

Also, you put your own words on the page on why it should be there. This is an editorial and shouldn't be there. Article is about the person, not your own thoughts about a source. Bgwhite (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually completely disagree with your analysis of the factual data that I added to the Edgar Smith page. In fact you own verbiage seems slightly contentious to use your word and a bit arrogant in your "explanation" of why you removed my text; in fact everything I wrote is based on sourceable material; your logic eludes me. Please come up with something better, if you can, or I will undo your change. Vancewilson (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you are new here. You don't know the rules. When you write a message on somebody's talk page, you don't hijack another message. You click "New Section" and write a new message at the bottom. It is also best if you don't call the other person arrogant. It is best if you write here, where the discussion got started. I have your talk page on my watchlist.

Bgwhite wrote: "I have your talk page on my watchlist." And that effects me how?

Actually its best if "you" don't write inflammatory comments like this one and a preceding sniping comment when you deleted a prior addition I made to the Smith page, to the effect of "we don't use 'dubious sources' (my words), as though you are some kind of arrogant person with vast knowledge about the planning, constructing and executing of reference material, clearly not an accurate circumstance here. Secondly, I don't 'cotton' to verbiage like "hijacked" etc. and I am most certainly NOT new here. Thirdly, I did not indicate the information was sourced, I said it was sourceable. Additionally, I wrote the majority of the text on the Edgar Smith page based on my own research. The book "Counterpoint" had previously not been mentioned or used as source data on that page - most of the information on it comes directly from that source, via my research. There is a major difference between saying that information is 'sourced' and 'sourceable'. I generally don't call people arrogant unless I think or have reason to believe that they are. Finally, don't bother replying because I find your input less than worthy of my time.

Oh one last thing, I do concede your point about the eligibility of including the data in question, but then, I had already been debating whether or not to include it - you are confusing the issue which was a perfectly legitimate although perhaps rule breaking post that was in no way an attempt to provide falsified or editorialized, "self inclusive" information. Now please, remove yourself from my universe. Thank you, and thank God I'm not you.Vancewilson (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vancewilson (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)You have to change the working of your addition. You cannot put yourself into the content. Statements such as "I'm not entirely sure about protocol or whether having the information..." is editorializing and putting yourself in the content.[reply]

You say the content is sourced, but it is not. There is not one ref in the paragraph. Where are the books? Where are the newspapers? You don't list one. The rule is very clear... per WP:BLPREMOVE, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research);" I did remove unsourced, contentious material. The material also had original research on your part. The material was removed per rule.

If you don't like the rules at Wikipedia, then you don't have to write here. If don't believe them or have questions about them, contact Wikipedia:Teahouse. They help nubies get started and to understand the rules. Bgwhite (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]