User talk:ZephyrListens1988
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, ZephyrListens1988, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Drmies, thanks for this kind note. I attempted to adjust the edit so that it would reflect only what the primary source asserts. I tried to keep it to a neutral tone. This is an important facet of the author's life, and pertains to why he has not publicly written since 2017. Would you be able to help me verify if it seems properly sourced now? Would be grateful for any assistance. ZephyrListens1988 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
[edit]
Hi ZephyrListens1988! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Emmett Rensin 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 at Talk:Emmett Rensin, 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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the note. I believe I corrected the citation and rule issue, but an anonymous user keeps deleting it. Would you be able to weigh in on what was wrong with my previous edit? Any help learning how to edit properly would be welcomed with gratitude. ZephyrListens1988 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- First, even if you're right, just doing the same thing over and over and hoping the other person gets tired is not acceptable. Second, unless there's are reliable secondary sources putting this post into context, we shouldn't include it, period. You've probably heard the saying "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Dredging up ancient posts or videos, especially those that the author wants deleted, in order to cast the subject in a negative light, is not what we do. That's what Twitter shame-mobs do. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that edit warring is clearly wrong, and i appreciate you pointing that out. And I'm not trying to shame or cast anyone in a negative light. He denies that he did wrong, it feels important to note that, but the fact that a denial was issued at all seems significant, especially given that this is a public figure, and that the subject of the entry covers a massive social/historical event that shaped US media, and that has its own wikipedia article. ZephyrListens1988 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- What "massive social/historical event that shaped US media" are we talking about here? He's a barely-notable writer from what I can tell. I hadn't heard of him before today. This is not someone like Trump or Biden where people come in with opinions already formed. You write "X denies Y" on the page about someone as obscure as this and most readers are going walk away thinking X is guilty as hell. The Wikipedia page can easily shape people's opinions, which is why we must be really, really careful about including allegations in articles about living people. Rumor-mongering is still rumor-mongering even if the subject denies the rumor. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The event I am describing is the leaking of the Shitty Media Men List, which fundamentally changed US media after 2017. It seems significant to be one of the 30 or so men named on this list. ZephyrListens1988 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- What "massive social/historical event that shaped US media" are we talking about here? He's a barely-notable writer from what I can tell. I hadn't heard of him before today. This is not someone like Trump or Biden where people come in with opinions already formed. You write "X denies Y" on the page about someone as obscure as this and most readers are going walk away thinking X is guilty as hell. The Wikipedia page can easily shape people's opinions, which is why we must be really, really careful about including allegations in articles about living people. Rumor-mongering is still rumor-mongering even if the subject denies the rumor. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that edit warring is clearly wrong, and i appreciate you pointing that out. And I'm not trying to shame or cast anyone in a negative light. He denies that he did wrong, it feels important to note that, but the fact that a denial was issued at all seems significant, especially given that this is a public figure, and that the subject of the entry covers a massive social/historical event that shaped US media, and that has its own wikipedia article. ZephyrListens1988 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- First, even if you're right, just doing the same thing over and over and hoping the other person gets tired is not acceptable. Second, unless there's are reliable secondary sources putting this post into context, we shouldn't include it, period. You've probably heard the saying "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Dredging up ancient posts or videos, especially those that the author wants deleted, in order to cast the subject in a negative light, is not what we do. That's what Twitter shame-mobs do. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Suffusion of Yellow, thank you for your patience. In the meantime, I learned something--I'd never heard of that list before. Exciting! Zephyr, you are lucky I was busy making fish tacos, and that no one reported you, because you could easily have been blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I owe this and a lot of other things to fish tacos. Cod? ZephyrListens1988 (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)