User talk:JHobson2

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JHobson2.

Welcome!

Hello, JHobson2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Brianhe (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, I'm Bobrayner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Deregulation seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Society of Literature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frances Wilson and Maggie Gee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtiers' Reply

Please do not add your own personal opinions, comments or analyses to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to The Courtier's Reply. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here, and that includes material that constitutes an opinion. While adding sourced opinions of notable persons in a way that accurately reflects mainstream views is acceptable, adding one's own opinions to articles is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the topic is controversial, or whether you feel you were justified is irrelevant. Wikipedia content is governed by various policies and guidelines intended to ensure its quality, and one of those, quite reasonably, is that editors do not add their own personal viewpoints to articles. I'm going to assume that regardless of how often you like to edit here, that you agree that it's reasonable for editors to be expected to comply with those policies, and that the project would suffer if they did not. If you agree with all of this (and feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong), then I assume that you must understand that the controversial nature of a topic does not justify violating that policy, since it is precisely those articles with controversial topics where that policy is most relevantly applied. To say that you were justified in violating that policy because the topic was controversial is a non sequitur.

The bottom line is, the only opinions we can add to articles are those that are sourced to reliable, secondary sources, paraphrased accurately, and with proper weight. This is why "A certain percentage of critics on Rotten Tomatoes didn't like this film, and here's the link to that" is acceptable, but "My dead cat could make a better movie than that director" is not. If you cannot follow this policy, and persistently ignore warnings after violating it (and I notice that this is at least the second time since February that you've been warned for doing so), then you risk being blocked from editing. I would rather avoid that happening, so if you have questions about that or any other polices, feel free to ask me about them. And if you think I've misapplied them, and think my words don't reflect the consensus of the community, then feel free to ask around, or even report me to others. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if that "someone else" is considered a reliable source in the field in question, and a citation can be provided to support their stated viewpoint. All material on Wikipedia must be derived from reliable, published sources. It cannot be derived from the personal knowledge or opinions of editors, since that's original research. That's a fundamental policy, and I assume you would agree that that's a valid one, correct? Nightscream (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you two questions.

Do you or do you not agree that all editors on Wikipedia should adhere to the site's various policies and guidelines, in particular the most fundamental policies designed to ensure the quality of its material and the effective collaboration of its editors? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not agree that in order for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be of any value to users, that it must restrict itself to relying on information from reliable published sources, and that per the site's Neutrality Policy, contributing editors should not use Wikipedia as a platform to voice their own personal opinions? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you answer the two questions I asked you above? Why is it that whenever I attempt to explain the fundamental policy that Wikipedia material must be derived from sources that are considered reliable in the field in question, you refuse to answer, or even acknowledge the point?

You want me to "be specific", even though you refused to answer my questions first? Why? If you're not capable of comprehending the fact that this site is governed by policies and guidelines, or even responding directly to others' questions or statements, then there's nothing I can do to resolve your confusion.

Please answer the two questions I asked you above, and let me know what you think of the wisdom of those policies. If you don't, then there's no point in continuing this back-and-forth with you. Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add your own personal viewpoints to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Courtier's Reply. The source in question never mentions or alludes to The Courtier's Reply. Rather, the criticism of "ignorance" in that essay was directed at Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, and not The Courtier's Reply. The essay also contains no mention of Myers nor creationist ignorance, much less the assertion these things constitute "special pleading", as this is clearly your opinion, and not Eagleton. As I informed you repeatedly back in May here, here and right above, editors cannot add their own personal viewpoints to Wikipedia articles, as this is a violation of the site's policy on WP:NEUTRALITY and Original Research. Again, please click on these links and familiarize yourself with those policies if you intend to edit here.

Also, why, during this subsequent edit, did you move the closing ref tag containing the citation of Eagleton's essay from after "London Review of Books. Vol. 28 No. 20 pp. 32-34" to after the title and link to the essay, so that the citation no longer contained that latter publication info, which was now left in the visible article text? And why did you write the new criticism passage so that the phrase "According to Terry Eagleton" was followed by a colon, the citation and a comma? Did you not notice this?

Lastly, citations go at the end of the material that they support. Not in the middle of it, as indicated by WP:PAIC. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]