User talk:Ieonine

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome Ieonine!

Hello Ieonine. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Paine Ellsworth, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Sincerely, P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} (Leave me a message) 22:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A lengthy welcome

Hi Ieonine. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration. Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles. Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines. If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable. If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page. I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please respond

Hi Ieonine. Can you please indicate that you understand the policies mentioned above, especially WP:BLP and that disputes are to be addressed on article talk pages, not by edit warring? --Hipal (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My edit summaries have been quite clear. Yours, on the other hand, haven't.Ieonine (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

I'm happy to explain my edit summaries. Generally, I'm referring to content policies when I write a word in all capitals, such as NOTNEWS.

Please note that you can be blocked or banned for violations of BLP even if you don't understand the policy. I again strongly suggest you refrain from editing such article further while you learn Wikipedia policy better. --Hipal (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Restore what you deem salvageable to the Eggert article and we can discuss from there. Ieonine (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

At a glance, none of the references look usable, and sanctions apply. I'll try to get around to looking closer as soon as I can. It would help if you started a discussion on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Starting a discussion is difficult when you haven't specified what you object to. The edit you've reverted is about clarification. Ieonine (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

...none of the references look usable... If you aren't familiar enough with BLP to understand the importance of using only high-quality sources, then you are going to find your time on Wikipedia extremely frustrating.

I'm puzzled by your apparent understanding of deprecated sources [1] on your first day editing with this account, yet you're using sources that are obviously much worse. --Hipal (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Anybody who's spent time looking through nndb knows it's trash. When I have doubts about the usability of a source, I check to see if it's used in other Wiki entries. All five sources cited in the Eggert edit are cited elsewhere on Wiki. You're painting with a very broad brush. Again, what is it you object to? South Bend Trib? Megyn Kelly? Medium? Radar Online? Crime News? None of those are "much worse" than nndb as you say. nndb is as low as it gets. Ieonine (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. You've apparently yet to look into the initial information I gave you about reliable sources, or anything since.

I don't see any of the following that you've used as appropriate: WP:MEDIUM, WP:RSPYT, aveleyman.com, go-star.com, worldinsport.com, localcrimenews.com, radaronline.com. I don't claim this is an exhaustive list. Some of these have other policy issues in how you've used them, such as the YouTube reference. --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Megyn Kelly video is from NBC's official YouTube channel and is therefore usable. If Radar is unusable, how about citing TMZ for the bankruptcy filing? WP:MEDIUM says Medium "should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert" which Glicklich is. Ieonine (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Megyn Kelly video is an interview, a poor type of source that should not be used to change the pov or content when better sources are being used.

WP:TMZ

Brian Glicklich doesn't appear to be an expert in the way Wikipedia requires. More importantly, he's not independent. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits

Hi, the edits you've been making are considered "cosmetic", meaning they make no difference to how the page appears to users. Removing unused fields in an infobox isn't very useful; they're not "broken", they don't display until a value is assigned, and they're doing no harm. (Learn more at WP:COSMETICBOT.) It's fine to make cosmetic edits while making other substantive edits. If you're looking for ways to contribute, check out WP:Task Center and check out any areas you might be interested in. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Cosmetic" or not, it's morbid to include death parameters on a living person's Wiki entry. I find it disturbing that some BLPs include this field and some don't. Ieonine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As stated, all you're doing is unnecessarily creating more work for editors in the future by removing unused and invisible parameters. You're also creating more work by forcing editors to revert your changes. Rift (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're making an argument to include death parameters on a BLP, then explain why the vast majority of BLPs do not include them. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems prejudicial. Ieonine (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Some editors type in only the fields they're using and delete the rest. Some copy the infobox syntax from the template page or other articles and keep all the fields, or just remove some of them. There is no reason unused parameters need to be consistent across articles. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement There is no reason unused parameters need to be consistent across articles. This is the definition of inequality. Ieonine (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Unused parameters are meaningless! I don't understand your objections. Schazjmd (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's the implication. Ieonine (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody sees these except editors. I tried to point out nicely that you were making unconstructive edits that clutter up people's watchlists, which tends to irritate them. All you had to do was go do something else. Instead, you're making a big deal out of it both here and at WP:NPOVN. This is such a waste of everyone's time. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

But the editors do see them, and the implication is shady. That is why I removed them in the first place. It's simply not fair that some BLPs are marked with "death" parameters and others not. Again, there are implications. You're implying that some people are more likely to die than others. Perhaps there needs to be a policy addressing this. Ieonine (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Morgan Freeman, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. We don't remove infobox parameters merely because they're currently unused, and certainly not because one editor finds the fact we all die "morbid"; it only makes it harder when the day comes and disrupts building the encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of BLPs do not include death parameters. Who decided that some BLPs should have them and some shouldn't? Ieonine (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of BLPs do not include death parameters. NebY (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can cite a few very high-profile examples: Joe Biden, Taylor Swift, Donald Trump, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Madonna. No death parameters on those infoboxes. Why should some BLP infoboxes include death parameters and others not? Ieonine (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Not the vast majority, then, merely a peculiar handful of outliers. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. NebY (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's the vast majority. It's the BLPs that do include death fields that are outliers. Ieonine (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)