User talk:Walokkan

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Arnzy (Talk) 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Mandela
Hi, can you cite a source criticising Mandela for keeping silent on Mugabe? I found a reference for the opposite: shows Mandela being very critical of Mugabe, as early as 2000. Zaian 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zaian - I am obliged to you for the reference, but it is almost 7yrs old and dates from before the effects of Mugabe's purges in Zimbabwe over the past 6yrs were well recorded. If you can find a more recent reference I will retract the comment. In the meantime please digest this piece from 2003 - http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0322,hentoff,44393,6.html. Actually there is precious little from Mandela on the Zimbabwe issue, he has been conspicuous by his absence. Regards.


 * OK, so there is a source criticising Mandela for not saying anything in 2003. Mandela retired from the presidency in 1999 and in 2004 actively stepped back from public life. He is now 88 and unfortunately speaks out very seldom these days; see http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,,1823060,00.html. His silence on Zimbabwe is no more conspicuous than his silence on other domestic issues - I don't think this should be confused with Mbeki's silence on Mugabe.


 * I removed your comment from the article before we started this conversation, as I think Mandela's 2000 comments were very significant and relevant (the current situation in Zimbabwe effectively began in 2000), so it is not true that Mandela has not commented on or criticised Mugabe. If you want to add it back, it needs to give both sides. Zaian 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that to remove my comment before asking for an explanation was extremely discourteous - and your stipulations about what can and what cannot be added are not acceptable. The criticism of Mandela's failure to speak out about Mugabe's oppression is more recent than your reference and in my eyes is more relevant. You are sounding like an apologist, and can therefore be accused of bias. Do not remove my comments again please.


 * Please think again about those comments. I'm not an unreasonable guy, nor am I a biased apologist - see WP:NPA, WP:AGF. Also note that I haven't accused you of anti-Mandela bias, nor have I tried to downplay your reference. Nor is it fair to call me discourteous - I contacted you with the reasons I removed your comment, and entered into a discussion. The aim is to establish consensus, which is what I attempted. I've shown enough reason why your original comment was not accurate to say that Mandela has never criticised Mugabe; you've shown that he has indeed been criticised for not saying enough. The only reasonable outcome is to give both sides with references. Zaian 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Zaian - I'm happy with the content of he current segment. BTW I am not anti-Mandela, I am anti-politician; and at the end of the day Mandela is a politician and just as likely as any other member of the 'species' to ignore the truth and to pick and choose the issues he wants to take action on.

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Thomas Taylor, Baron Taylor of Blackburn has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. McSly (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The two recent edits you made to the Neil Kinnock article have been reverted, as they appear to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edits were constructive, please ensure that they are verifiable and that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. PJHaseldine (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your editing style
Hi Walokkan, it's good to see you editing Wikipedia, but please have a look round and try to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's content policies before continuing. I would particularly recommend Neutral point of view, Biographies of living persons, Verifiability, Citing sources, No original research and Avoid weasel words. Please do take the time to read them all, or you may find editing Wikipedia to be a frustrating experience, given that your contributions won't stay for long. To take an example from your edits, you added the following to Neil Kinnock:
 * "However, it does seem incongruous that Kinnock and his wife, who forged their political careers railing against the inequality and social injustice of unearned privilege and 'old school tie' nepotism, have promoted the careers of their offspring so obviously. "

Many people might agree with you, but you've added this entirely as your opinion, and as such it will inevitably be reverted. If there has been widespread criticism of Kinnock for this reason you need to cite it elsewhere, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that aims to integrate the range of what's already been written on a topic. It's often said that the standard is not truth but verifiability. This might seem perverse, but consider that Kinnock himself and his supporters would clearly take a different view to yours, so a back-and-forth between opposing opinions or interpretations, both purporting to represent the truth, will not get the encyclopaedia anywhere. Instead we need to dispassionately reflect what's been said on the matter by other people, crediting different views to their proponents. We also need to be careful to reference everything so that any reader could if they wanted follow the paper trail and verify all the facts in our article. Saying that Kinnock is a hypocrite is not verifiable because it's a matter of opinion. Saying various people whose views are relevant to the matter regard him as a hypocrite is not a value judgement on our part and so is verifiable. In your edits to Peter Truscott, Baron Truscott you somehow lost a footnote which a previous editor had taken the care to add, so please be aware of the need to have everything referenced. Thanks for your work and I hope you'll stick around. Your edits are appreciated but you'll be more productive if you brush up on policy. Cheers 79.72.132.47 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings
I have reverted you recent additions to Boston Marathon bombings. Wikipedia content must be referenced to reliable sources. You would also need to find a very good reason (other than it being factual) to include that material. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article, so does not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Your recent editing history at Endeavour (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, I'm Joseph2302. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2021–22 Ashes series, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Adding an unsourced section about a potential umpiring controversy is WP:OR, WP:SPECULATION and WP:UNDUE in an article about the series. We report sources facts, not unsourced speculation'' Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)