User talk:Orexin

Welcome!
Hi Orexin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Orexin (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Okay, but you do realize that that is not a blog. It is the leading Charity in the UK with links the to the industry even on some of their advisory board so although the reference formatting was incorrect. It is a high quality source that should not be considered a "blog level citation" this is where Narcoleptics in the UK go to get help with benefits and advice and assistance with that thereof. There fore I think you undoing the edit was incorrect. All you needed to do was correct the references as if you visited the pages it has a plethora of secondary references, than has centralized all that information on one page. This is an organization with paid people. I cannot understate The magnitude of this error.

Workers Party of Britain
Please don't remove the note around sourcing: it's there for a reason (in that we need reliable, independent sources). The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source. — Czello (music) 12:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Dude stop reverting and engaging in topic you have no idea, what you're talking about. You're not reliable source. There's barely any sourcing for the workers party of Britain so stop being annoying and reverting the edit. Orexin (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more reliable then wait for it, YOU, which YOU over daily mail I'll choose the daily mail any day. Daily mail is leading UK newspapers as well, so you're WRONG again what are you talking about do you even read the article as well. Orexin (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Calm yourself down, see WP:CIVIL. There's no need to get worked up.
 * And no, we don't use the Daily Mail at all, see WP:DAILYMAIL. Until you can provide a reliable source it stays blank. — Czello (music) 07:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable."; "The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." "Despite this, the source may be used for *uncontroversial self-descriptions* (like the ideology of workers party), although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. " A) There is no other reliable sources other than the worker party of Britain website itself B) The daily mail which I've read is just the guy reading twitter and and the website and it even has a video on it. There is no ban on the daily mail and given the fact that there is C) barely any sources I would say it's a good source, I've read the worker party of Britain website itself and other than the anti-socialist hysteretic. The daily mail is good. Therefore given that restriction not a ban, and it is allowed in the ABSENCE of other source I would advise it be kept on provisional basis, if you like to add a note saying "although there is not a ban on daily mail, there is scant third party documentation on the workers party of britain other than the website itself". Like dude it's in the name sources is aside what the hell do you think most parties with workers in mae are for like come on now. I believe that the sources provided are in line with wiki guidance. I hope you'll agree with that it can be used on provisional basis "uncontroversial self-descriptions" quoting the Wikipedia and that notes be made saying as much rather than none at all. Do you agree with following or not. Orexin (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't use WPB's own description. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and we require independent sources. — Czello (music) 11:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's missing the point do you agree that following guidelines of Wikipedia under the section of *uncontroversial self-descriptions* that in this case for something like ideology that daily mail is appropriate and that following guidelines as I've quoted above in this case as third party source. And that is this case again following the guidelines above a provisional usage of it may be allowed. Orexin (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An uncontroversial self description would be an attributed statement, like we have later in the article. The infobox should use more objective and independent sources. — Czello (music) 21:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)