User talk:Even616

Welcome!
Hello, Even616, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Pickup artist does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Grayfell,
 * I appreciate the heads up especially after I rechecked my wording of the 2nd sentence. While I will rectify certain portions I suppose that are not considered objective due to the technical subjectivity of successful tactics in the PUA community along with other parts of it, I’m wondering what the status of the first edit (the first sentence) would be. It’s not my intent to cause trouble, but my interpretation on this was that all of the edits, despite being individually published, were collectively penalized. Despite I thought and still think the first sentence at the least was acceptable, I don’t want to add the exact same thing in again as if I were trying to cause a problem. I can fix the 2nd sentence, though I’m wondering if merely rewording it to say that it is a ‘generally accepted opinion’ or that it’s ‘the popular conclusion’ as opposed to a certain reality would be too little of a change by wiki standards if the post still mentions the potential of someone getting confused or “wasting their time” as I put it is still an element of the post. I edited recently another wiki on “List of states with nuclear weapons” and I was wondering with the edits I did recently on there, particularly the last sentence (it’s at the end of the top page) which states a conclusion based off the inflexibility of nuclear weapons stockpiles that I felt was self-evident based from the prior sentence, that it was fine at the time, but now I’m questioning whether the wording and conclusion itself is considered insufficient. That conclusion also is one that articles imply to agree on and will hyper-focus on the projected stockpile build-up over the next decade or so while ignoring to say that one part of it overtly. This is typical of nuclear weapons articles that often value creating alarm for views, in 2023 or in prior years they’d say the same thing, but what I posted with acute stockpile decreases still did occur as shown in the new 2024 FAS update even though that’s not the primary message the article was trying to espouse through its hyper-fixation on long term stockpile status. This is why I didn’t have an ending citation on that last sentence, I was hoping that conclusion was self-evident enough to not need a citation cause even though it’s true, I doubt I’d be able to find an article that will say it more overtly, so I was just wondering if what I published is still clean enough for wiki? Even616 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even616, I'm sorry, but I really can't follow this long paragraph. If you are arguing that this paragraph should stand, I disagree: it's very verbose, the grammar is lacking (particularly the last "which"), and the source is--as indicated--not a reliable secondary source. Plus, "seduction community"? Hmm. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies, I appreciate your criticism on the part where I was verbose generally and the point about “which” being used twice particularly, I’ll change that in my editing and clean up any more errors like it as I see them. However, the secondary reliable source part I didn’t interpret as the reasoning for Greyfell’s message at all, but that it was the lack of objectivity based off interpretations I felt were self-evident and it was too opinion-based instead of an issue with the source itself. I don’t agree with your point that the source itself is unreliable unless you explained more. I saw Greyfell’s later comment saying that IF your point was correct that I should change it, but I don’t agree that it was unless we’re talking about sentence #2, but that wasn’t the sentence you linked me. There are 2 parts where “seduction community” exists in that link you posted, one is just a phrase mentioned as part of the citation itself, which was a section of historycooperative.org and the other was something another guy posted with the “lairs” comment up top that I had nothing to do with. Even616 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what? Communicating clearly and succinctly is a very useful skill if you intend to continue editing Wikipedia.
 * Neither of the two sources you added to that article are great. The first was just a blog post and should not be cited at all, per WP:SPS. The second is only slightly better, but still weak per WP:NEWSWEEK. All sources are judged in context.
 * Regardless, you need to summarize what the reliable source actually says without adding your own spin on it. No editorializing, no WP:SYNTH, no cherry-picking. If the sources you can find do not support the perspective you want to add, don't add that perspective. Either keep looking for better sources or find some other topic to edit. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To attempt to answer your question succinctly: being self-evident to you, personally, is not enough for Wikipedia.
 * Regarding this block of edits to List of states with nuclear weapons, please remove anything you have added which is not directly supported by a reliable, independent source. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research, nor is it appropriate to combine sources to imply something which none of them directly support (known as WP:SYNTH in Wikipedia's jargon).
 * As for Pickup artist, what Drmies said. If the article includes misconceptions, you will have to use reliable sources to address those misconceptions. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting WP:SYNTH cause that clarified a lot to me and answered my point, I am absolutely rethinking what I wrote down and I got a pretty good idea of how to move forward on the nuclear stockpile part without issue. Even616 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)