User talk:Wtonetto

Braco (gazer) commentary
I reverted your comments about Stollznow's criticism of Braco from the article because they seem to be just yours. We're not supposed to inject personal editor commentary or other original work into our articles, we're just supposed to cite Reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are basic standards of fair-play and reasoning, which Stollznow fails to observe, thus I have reverted back to that. If Wikipedia will not adhere to such standards, it loses credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.93.118 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it is not for us, anonymous editors, to insert our own arguments into our articles. We can only find other reliable sources who argue, and cite them. The idea is that no one should have to care what we editors think.
 * Imagine, if you will, if the article about any given controversial topic - abortion, guns, Middle East, Ukraine, global warming - were full of discussion between anyone who could edit the article and wanted to put in their two bits. In order to keep the articles legible, we don't write our own opinions, merely summarize those of reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source commenting on Stollznow's comment, that might be fair game. If it's just you or me, well, we don't count. --GRuban (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is specious reasoning. I am not anonymous, by the way ... and I always insert my own arguments into anything I write (that's why I write what I write ... sripsi, scripsi). This is not just placing one citation against another, as you would have me believe; it is basic reasoning, which Stollznow does not apply. For that reason, my emendation must stand ... or else anyone can publish a piece asserting 1+1=5 and for that opinion to be allowed to stand. That's clearly foolish and frivolous.

This is even more important in the context of Stollznow making an unacceptable attack on Braco's character and integrity. That should not be allowed to stand unchallenged (I did NOT ask for that foolish remark of hers to be excised).

Wikipedia joins the ranks of unreliable sources if it does not allow common-sense and reasoning to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.134.219 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Well, Wikipedia shows itself as a) lacking credibility, given its lack of rational rigour: just because some fool opines something does not make it noteworthy. That you will not allow my correction to stand shows your blindness and your lack of professionalism; b) an effective deterrent for clear thinkers

June 2016
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Clock, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)