User talk:Thevitogodfather

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a personal friend of his and my brother is his best friend. He committed suicide tonight and my brother found his body at his house. Thevitogodfather (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but information of this sort absolutely must be sourced. Wikipedia is not a news service, so it is perfectly acceptable to wait a few days for reliable sources to emerge. It's more important to get the information right, especially when dealing with biographical articles. Please stop adding it until it can be independently confirmed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the talk page for the article. Per WP:BLP we cannot allow such claims to be added to an article until reliable sources such as news organizations report it. The personal say-so of an editor is not sufficient. Edison (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry for your brother's loss, but I was just heading here to say the same thing as these two cats. Information like that--declaring a subject dead--really must have a source.  Take a brief read through WP:BLP if you get the chance.  Ford MF (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say look for an obit in a local paper perhaps? Even just a death notice would qualify.  Ford MF (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder
Thanks for your recent addition. I was going to initially start adding more about the controversy tomorrow, but you beat me to the punch. I reverted your edits since I'm trying to keep the layout and citations consistent. I removed some of the sources because it didn't contain the information that was stated in the article. We need to ensure that the section remains neutral and my edits attempted to ensure that. I'm not disagreeing/agreeing with the opinion of the groups, but want the section to be accurate. If you think that it should be reverted again, please discuss it on my talk page first (I'll be on and off throughout the day) so that we don't keep reverting each other. If you believe something is insensitive, please explain it to me so that we can fix it. I'll make a correction now about the screening. Also, as a side note, make sure to sign all of your posts on talk pages (using the signature button in the toolbar above or use ~ . Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just modified it now. Please take a look and let me know if it should be edited further. I'm still working on the article as I just found a few new sources. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think mention of the clips is really that relevant, especially when the film is going to be released in less than four days. Once the entire film is released, then the clip excerpts will not be as significant as the film itself. I will keep an eye out for articles that talk about any further controversy after the film is released to implement into the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the controversy is over the film itself. Many films have clips and trailers available on the Internet prior to its release in theaters, and many sites link to them. The section should not be about covering how a few random clips are bringing controversy, when it is rather the scenes in the film itself that are doing so. We mentioned the Simple Jack website since it linked to the film but was a marketing tool used for promoting the film. When the film comes out in just a few days, the clips are going to be irrelevant. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is because the film's trailers have already been released and wouldn't be edited. The advertising that was edited was obviously the removal of the website along with the television promotion teasers. The trailers have been out for months and there is just now controversy over the film. It is likely that the first major opposition to the film was from some of the groups' members watching the recent screenings (I actually remember seeing a source that stated this was the case, but I'm still trying to find it again). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the article is called mental retardation (intellectual disability is mentioned within the article). Since that is the common article name used, I have reverted it back to this name but have mentioned intellectual disabilities throughout the section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but if the article's name is to be changed, that has to be proposed on the talk page of the article. If consensus agrees on renaming the article, then it may be changed. Go to the talk page, list your reason(s) for changing, and be sure to discuss it with any editors who join in on the discussion. If you have further questions, please let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I can justify erasing the words mental retardation, when readers may be unaware of the intellectual disability phrasing. I prefer it myself, but I am not promoting one term over the other and have to take in consideration what is currently more common knowledge. If the article's name were to be changed, which would indicate that more people recognize the new phrasing (don't know how long it has been out), then I could see it being worded the way you suggest. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program at MSU
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian associated with Michigan State University. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at MSU, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone in the East Lansing area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)