User talk:Finney1234

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Published autobiographies as sources[edit]

(Copy a discussion from "Biographies of Living Persons" so I can access it easily).

I may have asked this question a year or two back, but I don't think it was answered. Is a published autobiography (by an respected academic press) considered as an acceptable source for a Wikipedia biography, or not? Is there any explicit Wikipedia documentation addressing this? Is there any noteworthy prior discussion on this topic? Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It would probably need in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At a minimum it would be usable as per WP:BLPSELFPUB. - Ryk72 talk 23:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed re: the above replies, though my guess is that whether it would need an in-text attribution depends on the nature of the claim it's used as a citation for. If you search the archives using "autobiography" as the search term, it looks like there have been several relevant discussions. Some identify other autobiographies of this sort, such as Barack Obama's and Burt Reynold's, so you could also take a look at their pages to see how those autobiographies are used as sources. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Colin Grainger article is cited 95% to his autobiography, and that was promoted to GA. GiantSnowman 09:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannabis Changes[edit]

First, SUPERB updates to the Cannabis article. Your work is appreciated. The last sentence regarding number of CHS deaths would appear, in context, to mean that four people in the group defined as "one Colorado medical center following legalization". Is there a way to make it clear that it is 4 people ever without sounding as POV as I would make it sound?Last1in (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last1in Good suggestion, I did a preliminary change. BTW, what does POV mean here? Not Point of View, I think. Pissed-Off something? I'm not sure what your ever means; four is the sum of what's reported in the two existing citations. It is certainly possible/likely that more deaths have occurred since, but I didn't want the reader to think the number was in the hundreds or thousands.CHS is a nasty symptom that I'd never heard of till 2 days ago! (and I've done a lot of cleanup on Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome).
Thanks for the appreciation, most of my Wikipedia changes get ignored :-) Finney1234 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a Cannabis proponent, so my edits would be very POV. I'd want to put in something like "more rare than being struck in the ass by a meteorite." I was shocked to find that there were four; I'd only ever heard of one death in 2018. Hence, you are a far better person to correct the article than I. And an excellent editor overall. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This Alex person sounds like they need a large dose of the product in question. Every source I can find for differentiating between inhalation and oral consumption would equally miss the bar s/he has set for BMI. Last1in (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2021[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cannabis (drug). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Maybe try WP:BRD, especially before edit-warring in junk sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alexbrn A single WP:Good faith revert is not an "edit war"; this posting on my talk page was inappropriate. See WP:WAR: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts....not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warrings". See also WP:Reverting. Also, please check sources before calling them "junk" ; the cited source was a solid reference (even if you personally dislike the book and publisher). (That said, I have now learned that the stricter WP:MEDRS guideline rather than the standard WP:Verifiability can be argued to apply here. Although I'm not sure I agree, I accept WP:Consensus). Finney1234 (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you review the user's talk page, AGF is the only thing that prevents the application of the label, troll. I am sure they mean well, bless their heart. I think it is best for you to continue editing Cannabis in good faith as you have been doing and let the community support you. Last1in (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use tags[edit]

You can use {{divbox}}-like tags to format your proposals or replies nicely. Regards. AXONOV (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AXONOV I'm not quite sure what type of formatting you're referring to; could you clarify? Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]