User talk:Skinnytony1

Welcome
Hello, Skinnytony1, 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! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) thxSkinnytony1 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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

Reliably published sources are required
Content, particularly content relating to living people, must be supported by reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight, this is particularly true in claims about medically related content.

In addition, content in an article must be from sources that are directly discussion the subject of the article, not merely something related to the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * THanks bro but I think the Centre for Disease Control couldn't be more reliable http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm Skinnytony1 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * while the CDC is "reliable" in the general use of the term, it will generally be a "primary" source and of little use to Wikipedia because Wikipedia editors gather the analysis and commentary of others that have looked at the primary sources; we dont provide any of our own analysis in article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly when dealing with content about a living person, Wikipedia is not here to provide "pro" and "con" sides. Setting up something as "controversy" or "criticism" sections are almost always a bad idea. And setting out to show how bad something is really has no place here. Content must always be from sources that are directly and explicitly actually discussing the subject of the article.

And I should have linked the abbreviations: WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. If you type WP:___ (fill in the appropriate letters) into the search Window you will get directed to one of the pages that outlines the Wikipedia policy or guideline .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ervin Laszlo
I appreciate your attempt at editing the Ervin Laszlo article. Unfortunately the references you cited I.e. (YouTube, blogs etc) are not reliable sources for Wikipedia so they were removed. You need to either cite reliable books (look on Google books for any books that discuss Laszlo etc) or scientific papers (PubMed or JSTOR are useful). If you look at the Dean Radin article, or Russell Targ, have a look at the "reception" sections, I heavily edited these. I believe something similar should be done on the Laszlo article (are there any reviews for his books?), perhaps we can work together on trying to improve the article but only if reliable sources are used. I am in agreement with you, Laszlo's views are complete pseudoscience but we need reliable references if we are to include this in his article. Cheers. Goblin Face (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Totes agree Goblin Face. Let's do it. I dumped my edit onto the article at rational wiki so that write up wasn't in vain. wikipedia has a bigger audience so i think it's important to get this one done properly. I hear you about "reception" section...it's sad tho, i've noticed a transition in articles away from "criticism" which is usually the only interesting section. protecting their ass.  Skinnytony1 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Politrukki (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Politrukki (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits
I notice that you often mark edits as minor, when they are much more than just a simple correction of a typo. Please don't do that. It's better to err on the safe side, and, in fact, there is no requirement to mark any edit as minor. Otherwise, carry on with the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx for the comment BullRangifer, I'll stop being so lazy :P Skinnytony1 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikistrat
Hey! It looks like Dan Green hasn't been active on Twitter in a couple of years. Check their LinkedIn profiles, though. You'll find Green is indeed a Tech Advisor now, no longer CTO. Schaffer has moved from CEO to Business Development Advisor. Hershkovitz and Skuldt haven't worked for Wikistrat in years - I'm not sure it makes sense to put them in the intro? Same for Daftari and Weitz. Since there is an Analysts section where we mention the company's most prominent analysts, I think they should be listed there, with the references you found. (Weitz already is.) Ottens (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Ottens thanks for getting to the bottom of that and appreciate the time it would have taken to find out...if you don't I'll change the wiki to reflect the above. Skinnytony1 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of White knight (intelligence firm)


The article White knight (intelligence firm) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Looking at the citations, the content of this article is based on speculation. None of the sources confirm that Zamel has ownership in the company, or what it actually is, or its links to Psy Group. If the content remains, it should be put in the Psy Group article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... disco spinster   talk  13:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (White knight (intelligence firm)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating White knight (intelligence firm).

User:MJL while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

– MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:White knight (intelligence firm)


Hello, Skinnytony1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "White knight".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2020 (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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)