User talk:Rickm7x

September 2008
Welcome. I'm sorry if you felt my edits did violence to your work. The way the references are set up now isn't entirely in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. WP:FOOT might help with further information. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will look into those suggestions. I do want to follow protocol, but the references are different from the sources (although they may overlap) and I believe they are necessary for the article. If you can specify (to save time) what it is about the refs that make them not in line with Wikipedia, please let me know. Thank you. Rickm7x (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Footnotes should be reciprocal links. David in DC (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I do that? Is there an easy to understand page to create the reciprocal links when the numbers are different (for different footnotes)? Thanks. Rickm7x (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles about living people
Articles about living people are governed by the WP:BLP policy. Please familiarise yourself with this policy and abide by it. Note that it doesn't just apply to biographical articles, it also applies to all comments about living people anywhere in Wikipedia. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with articles about living people. You made an error in attributing a cite from a FrontPage Mag article to me, so you need to check your facts before making accusations. Who are you?Rickm7x (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't attribute the cite to you. But you did source material to an SPS. Please address the issues on the article's talk page instead of blindly reverting. Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't claim you're removing SPSs when you're inserting them. Making false claims like that is unacceptable. Especially in a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not insert a SPS. As stated, the blog contained the actual document and I added that information in the cite.  Therefore I did not make a false claim.  So A. I did not insert the David Horowitz cite from FrontPage Mag and B. I clarified that the document is clearly visible on the blog and therefore NOT a SPS.  So please stop trying to start an edit war.Rickm7x (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
That kind of thing has been argued before. Take a look at the talk page. That isn't NPOV. Plus, it's not a think-tank or anything along those lines, so adding "political affiliation" is neither necessary nor helpful. Dustin ( talk ) 04:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather than edit-war, please discuss your proposed addition on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center; it is Wikipedia best practice not to load down the lede section of an article with he-said, she-said quotes from opponents or supporters of an organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Lou Albano
I can definitely send you the relevant information. On my user page, there's a link at the bottom to my personal website; there, my CV has my email address at the top. Send me an email and I'll send you whatever you need. Korossyl (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Korossyl (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Two things
Hello. A couple of things:

There is no purpose in adding tildes ( ~ ) to an edit summary. This is only for adding a signature to the end of a comment on a talk page. See Help:Signatures for more.

As for BuzzFeed News, please discuss adding the political ideology on the article's the talk page (Talk:BuzzFeed News). Some articles on news sources have this, and many do not. This is judged on a case-by-case basis. The source you cited is about the site's audience, but is it not a substantial one, nor is it clear how this reflects on the site's content. This was a column based on a single poll from a single point in time, and if this is a defining trait, it should be possible to find other neutral sources which describe it this was. Again, the place to discuss this is the article's talk page, so that other editors can participate. Edit summaries are not good for this kind of discussion, and this talk page is not good for building consensus.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I add the four tildes because it says to sign posts "by typing four tildes." If it's not necessary for articles, then I will take your advice under consideration.

As for political ideology, there are numerous examples where it is given in the introduction. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Events, where the ideology is given in the introductions, yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_(website), like BuzzFeed News, has no such mention of ideology in the introduction despite it being mentioned (with sources) in the Editorial Stance section. This smacks of bias and gives the false impression that these publications are ideologically neutral. It is clearly biased to put ideology in the introductory sections in conservative/right-wing publications but to omit it for liberal/left-wing ones. Applying the same standard promotes a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickm7x (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posts to talk pages, like this page, should be signed by adding tildes to the end of the comment itself, not the edit summary. As Help:Signatures explains, this is specifically for talk pages, not for all pages. Edit summaries are not the same as talk pages, and should not be signed. Adding tildes to an edit summary does not add a signature to your talk page comments, and it makes it much harder for other editors follow a discussion.
 * As I said, your proposed content changes should be discussed on the articles' talk pages. Be aware that this issue has been discussed many times already in various places. To briefly explain past consensus, we do not assume that there are only two sides, nor that each side is equally valid. We judge each article on its own merits, and we do this by evaluating how reliable sources define a topic. If sources say something about Human Events, we will reflect those sources in that article. If they say something about BuzzFeed News, we will reflect those sources in that article. They are separate topics with separate sources. Treating them as similar because they are ideologically different is a subtle form of editorializing. The burden is on you to gain consensus on the articles' talk pages.
 * Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That seems like excuse-making for having a double-standard. Editorial comments are okay for right-wing publications but not for left-wing ones. The burden is on editors to not be biased but to show a neutral point of view and not take sides.

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)