User talk:Lw1982

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lw1982 (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 26 May 2014 (→Discretionary sanctions notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Hello, Lw1982, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content requires sources

Please note that content, particularly personal content about living people, requires high quality reliable sources supported by inline citations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Suzannah Lipscomb, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking such an interest?

I don't understand why you think it is not okay for anyone but yourself to make changes to this page.

April 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Katieh5584. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Suzannah Lipscomb because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Katieh5584 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, Lw1982. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Suzannah Lipscomb, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

The site you are linking is not a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this source any less reliable than the ones you are referencing? Genuine question, not attacking you, would just like to know?

If you lack the competence to understand why the dedication of the book is a reliable source for what the dedication of the book says, then you clearly should not be editing.
Whether or not she is currently married, she dedicated the book to her husband. plain and simple and well sourced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring MdeBohun's previous requests to have unreliable information removed? Suzannah Lipscomb is no longer married so does not have a husband. Therefore your information is out of date. Also your link to the source does not work and is therefore unreliable.

Wikipedia is not an advertisement for Lipscomb presenting herself as she wishes to be presented now. We are an encyclopedia that covers the subject. She was married and dedicated a book to her husband. Whatever happened between then and now, that she dedicated the book to her husband is a fact. It is a reliable source because books.google.com has a reputation for accurately reproducing published books. the book itself is a reliable source for what the book says. The website you are linking to has none of that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reference is no less valid than yours. Is the Evening Standard website a valid reliable source??? Your are not an admin so you have no right to take control of this page and treat it as your own. Other people are free to contribute.

1) Yes, your reference is vastly less valid than mine.
2) You are correct that I am not an admin, but admins are merely editors with mops and they have no more say than any other editor, although they do have the switch which will block you from any more disruptive editing.
3) People are free to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia - such as providing verifiable information and not disruptively editing and removing reliably sourced content simply because the subject may not want to remember that they did in fact dedicate a book to their husband. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She does not have a husband so you stating she has one is incorrect.

Do you edit everyone who dares to contribute to this page? You only restored the personal life information which had previously been removed once you saw I added her birth date info. This is not your personal playground to do whatever you want.

the content does NOT say she is married. it says she dedicated the book to her husband. you are not only incorrect; you have VASTLY exceeded the 3 revert limit. revert yourself now . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You at referring to a husband in the present tense. This is now an ex-husband so your information is out of date.

you need to learn grammar as well as wikipedia WP:RS policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid insulting me to avoid a valid point.

it is not a "valid point" because your misunderstanding of grammar means that you do not recognize what is and is not present tense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should state 'her then husband' or her 'ex husband'. Writing 'to her husband' implies he is still her husband which is not the case.

then please restore it with that phraseology. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please explain why you are so adverse to the month and year of her birth being added?

because all content, particularly content about living people must be verifiable as having been published in a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The content on the website you keep linking to could be uploaded by anyone. There is no evidence of any oversight or authentication. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Lipscomb wrote the book is notable. Who the book is dedicated to is really trivial and not worth noting at all. I can't remember many authors whose WP bios mention who they dedicate their books to. I don't know why the dedication is even mentioned except for otherwise it would be a very short sentence. It might be more appropriate to discuss the content of the book or how it was received by critics and readers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the fact of the dedication as a "dedication" is of itself of minimal value. That it verifies an important aspect of her life, that she was married or was pretending to be married, is where its encyclopedic value comes in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(:) can the comment about the book dedication her husband please be removed as it is not relevant (Lw1982 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

in the biography of a person, whether or not they have married is significant and relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(:) I will leave MdeBohun to deal with this as I am sure she will have more more impact on the admins redacted. (Lw1982 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That she has a conflict of interest does not give her positions or desires any greater weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(:) can I ask why you only re-added the comments about her marriage and residence after I contributed to her date of birth? Your comments were removed several weeks ago by MdeBohun but you only decided to re-add them after I added information to the page. (Lw1982 (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

i did not restore it immediately because i did not notice that it had been improperly removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
regarding " Just because there is no source on the internet confirming the marriage is over does not mean it is not a fact. Why will you not accept this?". For the same reason that we require EVERY fact to be verifiable and particularly because we require EVERY fact about a living person to be from a HIGHLY reliable source. Why would a claim of divorce be held to lesser standards?
In addition, your repeated insinuations about my editing of the article are completely inappropriate as well as being completely baseless. The Lipscomb article is one of THOUSANDS that I have edited while being the only one that you have edited, yet I am not making aspersions about your personal obsession about denying clear facts about the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(:) personal obsessions, and a vendetta to hurt people. (Lw1982 (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzannah Lipscomb

I think we're all getting off on the wrong foot in regards to the edits at Suzannah Lipscomb. If you would like, I can explain a bit more about why your edits are being removed. Feel free to reply here or at my Talk page. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all I'm trying to do is add a month and year of birth with the reference

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/director/2004331/suzannah-lipscomb

Unfortunately the user TheRedPenOfDoom is removing my link as they are saying it is a non reliable source.

I only added the information yesterday and as soon as I did the other poster then reinstated information personal life information that had previously been removed several weeks ago by MdeBohun as it was unsubstantiated.

I then questioned TheRedPenOfDoom over the reliability of their links as I don't think they are any more reliable than mine and the whole thing has escalated from there. I'm not sure why the poster is so adverse to me adding date of birth information?

Can you please help/advise?

I'd be happy to. We use self-published sources only for general information about themselves, with some exceptions (such as if the material is unduly self-serving or if there is reasonable doubt about authenticity). So her book qualifies as a self-published source, I think we can all agree on that. In addition, the book is copied at Google Books, which has a reputation for reliability because (among other reasons) they simply scan the text. If I were to scan the book and host it myself, it would not qualify as I'm not a reliable source in this context and it introduces doubt about authenticity. The website companiesintheuk.co.uk has no reputation for reliability and seems to exist in order to sell a product; it's true that there appears to be a process for the information to be updated, but we really have no information about who controls that process or (most importantly) if the subject is actually the source. For this same reason, we generally don't consider sites like IMDb reliable for films because just about anyone can submit information. But unlike articles on films where you may find the odd link to IMDb, articles about living persons have extremely strict policies about what we can say and which sources we can use.
One minor note: to aid in communication, it helps to indent your comments by adding a colon (:) before your reply, and to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~).
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lw1982. You have new messages at Woodroar's talk page.
Message added 03:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
If the googlebooks links really arent working for you, try the amazon preview [1] scroll to the top of the table of contents to read "To my husband, Drake, for his long-suffering of my sojourns in the sixteenth century, and for having unwittingly become a Tudor traveller himself"] But as you have now been told by multiple people, even if you cannot verify by the link, the actual citation to the book itself is sufficient verification of this claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

We have a policy at WP:OUTING that states that you should not post information about another editor on Wikipedia unless they have already done so themselves. You did so on this page, and I have redacted that information. Please do not put it back, or repeat the claim again anywhere on Wikipedia. If she wishes to self-disclose, let her do so. It does not matter if the information is true or false, if you know it for certain or are just guessing, to mention it is a violation of privacy and against policy. Thank you. -- Atama頭 21:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(:) what outing have I done? Genuinely confused as to what I am being accused of? Not sure even if I have that requires you to remove edits I have made? (Lw1982 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You made a suggestion about MdeBohun's real life identity that she has not proclaimed herself. Not only that, but what little biographical information she volunteered on her user page she later deleted, further reinforcing her desire for personal privacy. Again, read WP:OUTING for our policy on this. I haven't blocked you because I'm sure you were unaware of this policy, but I'm letting you know now, please be careful about this. -- Atama頭 22:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Suzannah Lipscomb

It is standard practice to list the title of the PhD dissertation in articles about academics. The title is referenced both to The British Library and to an article in the Oxford Times, both of which are reliable sources. My impression is that you are rather new here and unaware of the type of references suitable in context and the way certain article subjects are covered. You've already been blocked once for edit-warring in this article, why are you starting all over again by removing standard well-referenced material? Are you trying to make a point, because some of your poorly referenced material was removed? If so, I strongly suggest you read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. – Voceditenore (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: probably it was his own actions that led to a afd(clearly never needed). Not to mention the excessive tag bombing, Lw1982 will understand. OccultZone (Talk) 13:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore you are not an admin so stop acting like one (Lw1982 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No I'm not an administrator, nor am I acting like one. I am discussing with you, as a fellow editor, your inappropriate removal of well-referenced, non-controversial, standard information for articles on academics, a removal for which you have yet to provide a valid reason. Voceditenore (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone can you please converse in plain English, I am not a computer geek so your language is completely alien. AFD?, excessive tag bombing? (Lw1982 (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Suzannah Lipscomb shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
In fact, this was your 4th revert of the same information in the last two hours. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore As previously requested, please stop acting like an admin. It seems you have issues with control. (Lw1982 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

As a reminder, there is a very narrow exemption to the three-revert rule for reverting vandalism. If another editor is removing content in good faith, adding the material back is edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another revision of Dr Lipscomb's name. See talk page everyone agreed to leave it alone. Why must you keep on with this silly edit warring! It is not Lawhead. We found no good source to change it. Please revert it and leave it alone/ At least consult the page discussion. that's the 5th! Thewho515 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any agreement that I entered into. I am entering sourced information. (Lw1982 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You are edit warring'. Use the talk page to gain consensus for your edit. --NeilN talk to me 12:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lw1982&oldid=610193462"