User talk:Retronymster

August 2021
Hello, I'm Woodroar. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Dungeons & Dragons, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Retronymster (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Woodroar, Forensic Files is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's own definition because it is published by a reputable company and broadcast in the U.S.: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited." Forensic Files interviews primary sources and is a documentary style program.
 * You also said in your revert note undoing my addition about the relevance of Caleb Fairley's D&D playing to his crimes that "... this connection does not appear to have been made by any" (your sentence cut off there, and I'm assuming you were about to write "reliable source"). How much effort did you put forth before determining no one else made this connection? It took me a 2 minutes max web search to find a newspaper citation with the FBI profiler's statement on this connection, which I added. I was confident this would be easy to find support for because, again, it is a non-fiction television program.
 * I do not believe these sources are suitable for negative or controversial claims about living persons. I've started a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You're welcome to contribute there. Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last message is ambiguous regarding "sources". I mentioned above I added a newspaper citation. Are you including newspapers in your definition of unsuitable sources? I cite a newspaper that in turn cites an FBI affidavit used by the prosecution, clearly not something unsuitable or controversial.
 * Our policy regarding claims about living persons—particularly claims that may be negative or controversial—requires that we cite high-quality sources, and The Morning Call does not appear to meet those requirements. It's a local source, not especially reputable or disreputable, and the author doesn't appear to be especially noteworthy, either. I'd maybe use it to support claims about a regional event, as long as it wasn't negative/controversial and didn't name any living persons. That's clearly not the case here. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the affidavit the source mentioned doesn't exist. At least it's not Google-able, which is highly unusual. An affidavit from an FBI agent about a murder and Dungeons & Dragons? That's going to get some press. And even if it is genuine, a single source mentioning it tends to mean that it's not a prominent viewpoint and probably not appropriate to mention—again, particularly in the case of negative claims about a living person. I've gone over this in a little more detail at the BLP Noticeboard I linked above. Woodroar (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are setting up an unrealistic standard, frankly even nonsensical, that newspapers of record should mention a regional event to be cited in Wikipedia and, if it doesn't, then it's not citable. That doesn't make sense because this wasn't a national news story and the subject is not a nationally known personality, so it's not going to be covered in the LA Times, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. Where else other than local newspapers would factual information about a person at the center of a local news events be obtained? Historians and authors regularly cite and accept the validity of reports in smaller newspapers if that's the only source available, so it's an accepted practice. It's noteworthy because it was an interesting case forensically, which includes profiling, hence it was the subject of a Forensic Files episode. Also, your view that Kenneth Lanning's affidavit should have made national news if it was genuine is speculative; your view that his opinion is questionable because it's not a prominent viewpoint is also a non sequitur -- there are no other viewpoints to be found on that topic. It's irrelevant if the FBI profiler's statement on the perpetrator's association with D&D is the only one: It's expert witness testimony in a criminal case which gives it legal standing. I quote the affidavit and don't assert that it's true or not true -- it stands on its own merit and is public record. It wouldn't have been admitted into evidence by the judge as expert testimony if it was deemed speculative or defamatory. According to the interpretation you have of sources, no Wikipedia article should ever cite expert testimony about an individual in a criminal case if it is not reported in a national or international paper of record. I'd like an authoritative ruling on that or a second opinion from an objective party because this doesn't sound logical to me for the reasons I've put forth here.
 * Please—please—read WP:BLP in its entirety. And probably WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR as well. These are important policies on Wikipedia and they answer most of your questions here. WP:BLPPRIMARY, for example, says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. So yes, we absolutely need better sources to support these claims. Woodroar (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing these policies out. I just read the policy on court records, etc., but I wind up at the same place, i.e. that the citation is consistent with Wikipedia policies on sources regarding living persons. You know I'm not directly citing a court record or trial transcript, so why are you mentioning that? I'm citing it from a prominent regional newspaper, of which the Wikipedia policy states "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...". It's a reliable secondary source citing an affidavit, which is sworn testimony. Moreover, your statement that the Morning Call is not a high-quality source seems irresponsible. The Morning Call was "... founded in 1883, is the leading media company in the Lehigh Valley and the third largest newspaper in Pennsylvania". It's also owned by Tribune Publishing, a well-known, prominent news corporation that owns the Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, and New York Daily News, and other nationally known newspapers. The Wikipedia's principle on verifiability states "... all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I've done that by citing the Morning Call article. Finally, Mr. Lanning's statement is not likely to be challenged: Law enforcement personnel have immunity from civil law suits if they don't violate the law, so as a noted FBI behavioral profiler Mr. Lanning's statement cannot be challenged legally as defamatory. You seem to be the only one challenging it.
 * The Morning Call has never been evaluated at our Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so you can't say that it's reliable. It's an unknown. It's certainly not, say, The New York Times or The Washington Post, two "local" sources with worldwide reach and reputation. But even if the Times or the Post were making these claims instead, it's unlikely we would include them. That's because our BLP policy is intentionally conservative. We err on the side of removing unsourced/poorly-sourced/minimally-sourced claims unless (or until) they gain some traction. Disputes at BLPN over single sources (and even a small number of sources) generally result in the negative/controversial claims being removed. I'm logging off for the time being and I'll ask you to please reconsider and remove the claim. If you want it to stay, it's on you to develop a consensus that TMC is a reliable source and that one source is enough to prove due weight about that claim. Woodroar (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read your edit summary on your revert on my addition to the D&D article. You say that Kenneth Lanning may not exist. I am flabbergasted at how you repeatedly cast doubt on elements of my contribution without any effort to factually support that conclusion. Again, it took me less than a minute to locate multiple articles on, or books authored by, Kenneth V. Lanning. The most notable of which is likely his book "Child molesters: A behavioral analysis for law-enforcement officers investigating the sexual exploitation of children by aquaintance molesters", which was published by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. It seems he literally wrote the book on profiling behavior for a class of criminals, yet you question whether he is real! That seems reckless. I also see your disputing the reliability of The Morning Call as arbitrary and capricious. Here's a random example: I read a Wikipedia article a few minutes ago on DaBaby, the rapper, that has citations from The Miami New Times, The Charlotte Observer and TMZ on embarrassing and controversial aspects of his behavior. Will you be undoing those citations and associated verbiage? Those sources have never been evaluated in the RSN. I am confident these secondary sources are no more legitimate or reliable than The Morning Call.
 * I'm sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear, but I did elaborate at the BLP Noticeboard discussion linked above. Of course I know that Kenneth Lanning exists. His report on the Satanic panic was (at least partly) responsible for several wrongful convictions getting overturned. No, I seriously doubt that the affidavit mentioned in the Morning Call source exists. If an FBI agent and expert in Satanic conspiracies claimed that Dungeons & Dragons was somehow to blame for a sex crime and murder, then those quotes would still be making the rounds today. The Patricia Pullings and Jack Chicks of today would be telling anyone who would listen. That TMC is the only source to ever mention them is a strong indicator that they don't exist.
 * But in the end, whether that primary source does or doesn't exist is irrelevant. Because TMC is the only source making the claim, it's UNDUE and a BLP violation. We need more (and better) sources to include it. As for your example about DaBaby, I have no idea. I've never read that article, letting alone worked on it. You'll have to ask at Talk:DaBaby. Woodroar (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello, I'm Peaceray. An edit that you recently made to CODA (2021 film) seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm ScienceFlyer. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Kris Kristofferson, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please read the many comments in the talk page. Where is there any source saying he was diagnosed with Lyme disease in 2006? Where is any reliable medical source saying he had Lyme disease at all? Where is any reliable medical source supporting that long-term memory loss is caused by Lyme disease?'' ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, CBS News is a reliable source. Secondly, the statements are from Kris Kristofferon's wife in a Rolling Stone interview, about which in your deletion comment you say, "Closer Magazine and Rolling Stone are the major two sources, which rely on unreliable sources themselves." So Kris Kristofferson's wife, who was standing in the kitchen next to KK himself during the Rolling Stone interviewer, is an unreliable source? That is absurd. Are you saying she is lying? Then YOU should add your own edit stating that. It's a newsworthy statement either way. Answers to your questions:
 * Where is there any source saying he was diagnosed with Lyme disease in 2006? Kris Kristofferson's wife has stated this in interviews with Rolling Stone (www.rollingstone.com/feature/kris-kristofferson-an-outlaw-at-80-183141/) and the Huffington Post (www.huffpost.com/entry/a-slow-slipping-away-kris-kristoffersons-long_b_577c047be4b00a3ae4ce6609).
 * Where is any reliable medical source saying he had Lyme disease at all? Again, the Kristofferson's themselves have stated in interviews that Kris Kristofferson was diagnosed with Lyme Disease. If you don't accept this, then you are saying no statement by any person about their own medical condition can be referenced in Wikipedia and it must come from a "reliable medical source." I refer you to HIPAA. In the U.S., only the patient can legally authorize disclossure of their own protected medical information, which is what is being done in the interview.
 * Where is any reliable medical source supporting that long-term memory loss is caused by Lyme disease? You are exercising the Straw Man Fallacy by rebutting a point I never made. I never said "long-term memory loss is caused by Lyme disease". That's easy to refute! My edit paraphrased what was in the CBS News article that Lyme disease "... can cause neurological problems, including memory issues and what some describe as "brain fog," as well as a broad range of other symptoms."
 * I be more precise. I'll add back the edit and state that his wife made these statements, along with adding the Huffington Post citation. Retronymster (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kris Kristofferson. 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: 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. ''Kindly read and respond to the points made on the talk page. Also a warning that the Huffington Post blog is even less of a reliable source than a British tabloid.'' ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 1.) I did respond to all your points and am waiting for your reply.
 * 2.) Did you flag my edits as an edit war? That seems an unfair characterization and overreaction. Each edit I made was iterative and attempted to appease you, so I haven’t simply cut and pasted back the same text every time.
 * 3.) It takes two to have an edit war, so fault for that should be shared equally.
 * 4.) You characterize the CBS News article cited as churnalism, but it doesn’t meet the definition (it doesn’t rely on pre-packaged material like a press release), and use faulty logic in one of your objections (see my last reply), so I can’t correct perceived issues that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Retronymster (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2023 (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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)