User talk:Mad Dog Fargo

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Zzsignup, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

claims of "controversial" must be attributed
We do not use " Wikipedia's voice" to call something " controversial" - that value judgement MUST be attributed in the article text to the person or group who made that analysis and it must be appropriate for the article space in which that value judgment appears.

In addition, the sources MUST accurately reflect what the sources actually say.

Your source only can be used to cite a vague " CBS says the film sparked controversy", but that "controversy" is about the organization Invisible Children and not about Kony and so it has no place in the JK article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Per your policy link "(labels) are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". As Niemti have pointed out, there are MULTIPLE reliable sources describing the video as controversial, and it is rather self-evident (see Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue) to anyone who followed the video (have you?). As I have pointed out, the Wiki Kony video article even called the video 'controversial' multiple times without challenge. Why is it so hard for you to accept that factually, it is a controversial video? If you have a problem with how the edit is sourced, then correct the edit or add 'Citation needed' as others have suggested. Simply removing them even when they can easily be verified smacks of unilateral censorship/ownership/disruptive editing.


 * Regarding the source, did you even read the article or look at the title? The title is "Invisible Children's 'Kony 2012' viral video stirs emotion and controversy". A direct quote from the article "In less than a week, the video has garnered over 26.6 million views, but it's also sparked controversy." How can you claim the article is about Invisible Children the organization and not the video?


 * Nice straw-man argument. However you clearly knew (I hope) that the source was about the Kony 2012 video, which IS a section on the Joseph Kony page. If you feel that the video is not relevant to Joseph Kony (I disagree) then the whole section should be removed. If you feel the video is relevant, then the controversies need to be mentioned as they are part of why the video gained notoriety, and balance the section out. As it was, only the positive effects of the video are mentioned and unchallenged, which I don't doubt is intentional. Zzsignup (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) In case you are not aware, user generated content is NOT a reliable source and so no matter how something may be characterized or mischaracterized in some other Wikipedia article is an unsupportable position on which to base your position.
 * 2) That something may or may not be called "controversial" is NOT on the level of sky-is-blue that does not require sources or attribution and when challenged even sky is blue content should be sourced since BECAUSE anyone could source it in the blink of an eye.
 * 3) that a group who produced a film may or may not have become a center of controversy, is NOT content that is relevant to the article about the subject of the movie
 * 4) it may well be that the film itself is not appropriate for a separate section, however since we cover content in proportion to the level that reliable sources cover the subject and it does seem that the coverage of the film and the notice that it brought to the subject of the article does seem likely that is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) No, but it shows that consensus has been reached on this subject yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
 * 2) Moot. More than one editor has provided mainstream reliable sources that described the video as controversial (which you could have looked up 'in the blink of an eye') which for some reason you refuse to acknowledge.
 * 3) Hypocritical. You are arguing the negative nature of the video is not relevant, but leaves the positive praise of the video? How does that fit in with neutrality? Either remove all impact of the video, or leave both sides.
 * 4) As I said, I feel the video (both the positives and negatives of it) are relevant to the article. Zzsignup (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

American Wire Change
I have undone your entire reversion of another's work because the comment you made to justify doing so does not actually make any sense. Please don't entirely revert the work of another when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. 178.16.13.30 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)