User talk:JohnShocked

Panama Lewis

The long and opinionated comment you inserted into the Panama Lewis article completely in violation of Wikipedia conventions. As a courtesy to you I'm moving it to the discussion page rather than deleting it. Please make sure that in the future your edits are encyclopedic in nature, well-documented, and not POV. Brain Rodeo (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't write the article and I don't know whether it's accurate or not. But if you don't like the way an article is written, you have editorial privileges. Re-write the article to be neutral; don't just add an opposing point of view. Brain Rodeo (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Lewis, Aaron Pryor, etc

I'm sorry, what you wrote doesn't conform to Wikipedia conventions. It reads more like an angry letter to the editor of a newspaper. I removed the unacceptable content, but it's still saved in the system, so if you'd like to take a shot at refining it, go ahead.

As I said above, I didn't write the article and since I haven't seen the Pryor-Arguello fight I don't know how accurate it is (or isn't). My edit had nothing to do with the accuracy of the article anyway. I merely removed some flawed text from a very flawed article.

Be part of the solution, JohnShocked. Write some encyclopedic content for these articles - not just a long argument in favor of your point of view, but a neutral explanation of the facts. That's something that hasn't happened yet. Brain Rodeo (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete the whole thing, why not delete the parts of it that do not conform. I document practically everything I say in that piece, or state things that are widely known. For instance, if I state that the build up to this Pryor-Arguello fight was anti-Pryor in the press, then I quote the commentator of this fight referring to that build-up, that is ok, right ?

Ultimately, what is stated in the piece is based on watching the fight. I have a copy of the fight and I have watched it several times this past week, since reading the Wiki original, and I have been editing into that section what is clearly visible to anyone watching the fight. How could that be wrong ? -comment posted by user JohnShocked

What you're doing is called original research and is not compatible with Wikipedia guidelines. Consider this hypothetical: I could walk outside and look up at the sky and announce that the sky is green, and everyone can see it, so I'm going to state it as fact on Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees with me, I'll just tell them that I'm writing what I know and ask how they could possibly disagree with me. Now I'm sure you're being absolutely honest about your opinions regarding Aaron Pryor -vs- Alexis Arguello, you've got to write in an even-handed fashion, not stating your personal opinions, and always cite your sources. It's not enough to count the number of punches thrown & landed in a round; you need to be able to cite someone else's count. Using your own count is, as I mentioned above, "original research."

Regarding your concern that I might take away your editorial priviledges, I can't do that and I wouldn't if I could - I'm just a small-time independent contributor like you. You've had a little bit of a rocky start at Wikipedia, but your passion and focus are positive attributes which you can use to become a valuable contributor.

Have a great day! Brain Rodeo (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your dilemma. It's difficult to write good articles when there aren't resources to cite. But rules are rules, and we have them for a reason. It's often been said that Wikipedia isn't a blog, and that if you want to write opinion articles that's what a blog is for. That's why I have a blog myself at www.fisticmystic.wordpress.com.

One last thing - don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes (this thing: "~"). Brain Rodeo (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Geek page edit deletion

Your additions were removed because they were original research. The only things that the two external links you provided showed was that the television cartoon existed and that it included a computer named "G.E.E.C." The theory that this show then became the inspiration for the modern usage of the work "geek" is unsupported by reliable sources and thus unverifiable. --Allen3 ^talk 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I believe is not an issue. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The etymology of geek is easily verified as coming from Low German by consulting published dictionaries.[1] --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]