User talk:190.162.52.196

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.162.52.196) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! McGeddon (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at David Icke. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Spencer

Perhaps you'd like to list all the other things that Spencer is best known for – you know as well as I do that he's best known for being in Fleetwood Mac. I can find a couple of dozen references for it if you're really going to insist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd never heard of him until I read the Fleetwood Mac article so to me, he's not best known for anything. Got a reliable source in which a representative sample of the global population has been queried on what, if anything, they know Jeremy Spencer for? That's what you would need to turn "best known for" from an assumption into a useful fact. Why would you want to force your opinions into the article, when you can simply state what he was, as I did in my edit? What do you think you are adding to the article? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a reference to explain what he was best known for, and you have removed the statement, for the third time today. To avoid any further drama, I suggest reinstating it. There's nothing contentious or opinionated about it. What is being added to the article is a reliably sourced fact regarding what Spencer is best known for. By your token, every sentence in the article would be opinionated. The lead sentence as you insist on having it, suggests he did nothing else in his career. Again, I suggest reverting yourself please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he is "best known" for something is an opinion, and if you can find someone else who expressed that opinion, it doesn't change its subjective nature. NPOV is a core policy and your wording violates it. If you think that this would imply that every sentence is opinionated, then you have badly misunderstood the policy. Nor does the sentence as I wrote it imply anything about what else he did in his career. I notice that you have not given an answer to my question - what do you think you are adding to the article by forcing your opinion into it? Exactly what is your problem with stating the facts alone without applying a judgement to them? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an opinion; it is a fact – one which you have so far been unable or unwilling to refute. It is not in the least bit subjective, and no alternative has been offered. It does not violate NPOV as a reliable source has been added. Indeed, your sentence implies that he did nothing else in his career. I did answer your question, perhaps you'd like to read my post again. I note that you have ignored a significant number of unsourced claims in the article which have far more bearing on the subject than what he is (unequivocably) best known for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's a fact, you don't know what facts are. It's an opinion, pure and simple, and it has no place in an encyclopaedia. You did not explain what you feel is added by saying "X is best known for being Y" instead of "X is Y". Like I say, I had never heard of him, so to me he wasn't best known for anything. Right now he's best known to me for his role in uncovering the bone headed stupidity of people who can't distinguish fact from opinion and yet still think they have something to contribute to an encyclopaedia.

And no, stating one thing that someone did does not and cannot suggest that they never did anything else. Do you understand what a lead section is? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ANI report here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.