This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lithistman (talk | contribs) at 01:26, 16 September 2014 (→WikiLeaks and PRIMARY sourcing: further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:26, 16 September 2014 by Lithistman (talk | contribs) (→WikiLeaks and PRIMARY sourcing: further)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | LHM is busy working at his new job and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Dave Brat bet
I'll take you up on that bet! :-P $10 that, assuming Brat wins, it's still there by 11/4/2015? Λυδαcιτγ 04:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that it will go out without fight, but go out it will, at some point. It's just such an utterly trivial thing: newsy, not encyclopedic. Lithistman (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
--Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've converted the embedded image to a link - it's just a colon at the start of the wikicode. This avoids the NFC issue, but it's a bit more visible than commenting it out or removing it entirely. Unfortunately it doesn't work as a link when there are wikilinks within the caption as well (they get linked, rather than the image). I hope this is slightly useful to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Andy. I still feel like this is pettifoggery of the highest order, given that it's in a sandbox, where I'm trying to rewrite the article. Nothing in the NFCC that I've been able to find mentions this type of situation in any way, so I'm not sure why it's even a problem. Lithistman (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
List of wars involving the United States
For the content that was removed, was it relocated to a more appropriate article or completely deleted. If it has been deleted, then can a new article titled "List of military battles, skirmishes, and expeditions involving the United States" or something else be created? Mitchumch (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Mitchumch: This very issue has been discussed on the article's talkpage. Take a look at that discussion, and see what you think. Lithistman (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Burlingame, Kansas may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""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:
- ] (USD 454) operates a ], junior high, and elementary school. [[Allen
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiLeaks and PRIMARY sourcing
Hello!
Since this is more of general topic and not specific to the Landmark Worldwide article, I thought I would first come here. If you prefer that I move this discussion to the article talk page, just let me know and I will.
When using WikiLeaks or WikiSource or other WP:PRIMARY sources, we need to have a reliable secondary source that comments on or uses the item to establish the significance of the documents/statements. There are a number of discussions around this at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but a couple that are on-point are here and here.
Please take a look at those discussions and see what you think. Related to the Landmark article, I could not find a secondary source that discussed the WikiLeaks document. Thanks and Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the money quote from WP:PRIMARY, in my views: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The US DoL investigation is not being "misused" in this context, and is thus acceptable to cite in support of a claim related to the existence of said investigation. No "extraordinary claim" is being made that needs additional secondary sourcing. LHM 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, and the burden is on you. I won't template you, but I'm telling you that your edits suggest you are not editing the article in a neutral manner, and this is a clear example: tendentious information based on a primary source. I suggest you stop reverting until you find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'd recommend you put your "badge" away, and forget you're an administrator, now that you've decided to edit war. LHM 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- And simply because I made an edit that you disagree with doesn't mean that it is I who is being non-neutral. I am arguing for inclusion of a neutrally-worded passage (I note, with interest, that you refuse to point to anything in the wording of the passage that is tendentious) that refers to a USDoL investigation that is a matter of public record. LHM 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, and the burden is on you. I won't template you, but I'm telling you that your edits suggest you are not editing the article in a neutral manner, and this is a clear example: tendentious information based on a primary source. I suggest you stop reverting until you find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)