User talk:62.166.252.25

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to International Brotherhood of Teamsters&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from Cassiopeia
 Cassiopeia  talk  04:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Terrance Howard
I'd recommend that you remove the characterization "insane" from your comment on the Terrance Howard talk page. As a BLP, the rules are the same on the talk page, and 'insane' would likely be considered defamatory. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I characterized his claims as insane ("insane claims"), not the man himself. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I removed a sentence you wrote in the Terrence Howard article. Please be mindful of the Neutral Point of View policy, especially when editing Biographies of Living Persons. RomeshKubajali (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi RomeshKubajali. The source, The Independent says: "Howard has held some of his outlandish beliefs for quite some time. He’s previously said that he studied engineering at Pratt University but dropped out of the institution after getting into an argument with a professor about what one times one equals." As I read it, that would make Howard's belief that "1 × 1 = 2" "outlandish" (bizarre). I guess we could attribute that to the article's author, but it's not an opinion piece, and the publication has a proper editorial policy. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if we can have a section heading "Unusual beliefs", because these beliefs are properly sourced, then why can we not state that "1 × 1 = 2" is just one of his unusual beliefs? The claim is unusual enough that we created an entire section about it in the subject's article... --62.166.252.25 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence for two reasons. The first is that his "1 × 1 = 2" belief is already covered in the Terryology section so restating it gives it undue weight. The second reason is that articles should remain impartial in tone which that sentence was not. While it is correct to quote a reliable source as saying his beliefs are "bizarre" and "outlandish", the Wikipedia article itself should take no stand and should avoid stating opinions as fact. Also, now that you point it out, the section heading may also violate the Neutral Point of View policy. I am not familiar with Terrence Howard and his Terryology, but if possible your new section could be merged into the Terryology section. If the content of your section is not considered a part of Terryology then simply calling the section "Other beliefs" would also solve WP:NPOV issues. I'll let you decide the best course of action but if you have any more questions I am happy to help. RomeshKubajali (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Undue weight; maybe - or a suitable segue. And, as I stated above, I believe the sentence to be neutral enough. Your last reaction reads as if you are mansplaining. You are pointing to policy and guidelines, signalling willingness to provide more help, choose to write "which that sentence was not" instead of e.g. (emphasis mine) "which that sentence, in my opinion/as I see it, was not". If you are indeed just getting started on Wikipedia, I don't think you are behaving as a beginner. Regardless, I do appreciate your reply here, and I'm fine with keeping the sentence out of the article. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm kind of baffled by the first part of your reply. I didn't mean to come off as harsh or mansplaining so I apologise if it felt that way; my linking to various policies was just to make my thought process as clear as possible rather than to imply a lack of knowledge on your part or to mansplain things. Do you mind telling me how I am not "behaving as a beginner"? I'm not sure if you mean this as something I should fix about my behaviour. That aside I'm glad we could come to an understanding. RomeshKubajali (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)