User talk:Thargor Orlando/ArchiveOctober-November2013

Loup Garou
I was kind of surprised by your Loup Garou changes. Usually a wholesale change like that is offered up for discussion before it's made. Second, your changes presuppose an English-speaker looking up "loup garou" in a English-language encyclopedia to learn about werewolves. Is that likely? Chisme (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think it needs further discussion, I'm glad to have it at the relevant page. The French term, however, is used in plenty of English-language literature.  As for the change, I didn't feel it would be remotely controversial given the low profile of the target.  Again, we can discuss further at the article if you feel it's necessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Willy Deville also has album called "Pistola." While you're at it, you might change this to "Pistola (album)" in case any Spanish speakers come to the English Wikipedia in search of information about pistols. As for his "Le Chat Bleu" album, you might change that to "Le Chat Bleu (album)" in case any French speakers come to the English Wikipedia looking for information about Blue cat. Show me where "Loup Garou" appears in "plenty of English-language literature." And whether Willy Deville is a "low profile" is a matter of opinion. You really should've thought about it before you made all those changes. This is a community effort, not a playing field for one man's whimsy. Chisme (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, if you feel it needs further discussion, I'm glad to have it at the relevant page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Single Payer Health Care
The reason behind adding the famous South Carolina example was to illustrate that perhaps a significant reason there seems to be a sizable segment of public opinion that opposes single payer is because they don't realize they already have it in some respect, in the form of Medicare, and in fact often like it so much they're willing to stand up for it to protect it. I thought that was relevant to the public opinion/perception of single payer. You disagree? 71.236.145.234 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a conversation for the talk page of the article, not here. There's a section to address it there if you'd like to discuss further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I couldn't count the number of times I've left an entry on a talk page and gotten nothing in response for weeks or longer. 71.236.145.234 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair or not, people don't always take IP input seriously. You might want to consider making an account. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's funny you say that, because I don't always take username input seriously. And why should I? I actually do have an account, but I often choose not to use it because I prefer to minimize the likelihood of being singled-out in the witch hunts that disgruntled users (both amateur and experienced) take on when they don't get their way. That which we call a rose... 71.236.145.234 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Feminism Controversy around Spring Breakers
Hi there, Thargor. You removed my editions on a section on feminism controversy of the movie Spring Breakers (comment: "Feminism: not seeing how this is noteworthy or sourced to anything reliable enough to be noteworthy"). I was referencing a few blog posts to show that there was a debate within the blogosphere on the issue, with plenty of bloggers for and against. I could search for more reliable or important sources about the issue, as the film is shown still now as a source of debate. Do you think it would be ok like that, if I add additional, more reliable, sources? Or are there any other advises for it to be noteworthy enough to be kept? Thanks.--Samer.hc (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We should take this over to talk to get more eyes, but self-published sources are generally not applicable for articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, I moved it to the Talk section, adding examples on more reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spring_Breakers#Sexism_Controversy_around_Spring_Breakers --Samer.hc (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

RS/N
It is very rare that a source is unreliable all the time no matter what. That is why a RS/N case require: the source, the fact being used from the source, how the fact is being used, in which article. All these things are taken into account. RS/N did not find that a source can never be used no matter what in any article. An author interview is simply an authors own words reprinted in a source, there is little that can be unreliable about that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely, especially with Policymic, but we're both at the talk page now so we'll continue there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsmax
Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Frontier
Can you expand on your reason for deletion of controversies section? I started a convo on Frontier talk. Thanks. RepordRider (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)