Nixin06
Welcome edit
Hello, Nixin06, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Sigfrido Ranucci has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Nixin06, you are invited to the Teahouse edit
|
Hi Nixin06! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
World Socialist Web edit
You appear to be a single purpose account whose goal is to insert as many references to this publication into as many articles as possible. This is not in accord with Wikipedia's policy of editing from a neutral point of view, since you appear to be an advocate for the point of view of that publication. I have reverted a number of your edits -- reviews of unknown writers in film and book articles -- and suggest that other editors more cognizant with other subject matters will also be removing your edits from the various political articles you've added stuff from this publication to. I suggest that you check your personal politics at the door and stop trying to promote the WSW website, as Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, and cannot be used to advertise it. In addition, I'd ask if you are in some way connected to the site? If you are, then you must read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest and restrict your editing even further. We are not here to promote your political point of view, or anyone else's for that matter, nut to create an online encyclopedia that's valuable to our readers. If you cannot edit neutrally and without pushing a POV, then you probably shouldn't be editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am not an employee of the WSWS. I disagree with you on what WP:WEIGHT actually means. Specifically, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." RS regarding the WSWS has been debated elsewhere - so far as I understand it, the upshot is that the site is fit for purpose for a generally socialist point of view. Marxist art criticism is considered a significant viewpoint in reliable sources. Just as we are not here to promote particular points of view, we are not here to censor them either. --Nixin06 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Significant". Please show that these review from unknown reviewers (you could only find one passing reference to Walsh in a RS, for instance, for his article, which really should be deleted as non-notable) in a fringe website are "significant" in any way. They are not and, in fact, your pushing them is an attempt to bootstrap them into some degree of significance. NPOV does not mean that we represent every possible point of view about everything, that would be ludicrous, we'd have to include the opinions of flat-earthers about Eraserhead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't write the Walsh article. I did add some external links, after initially proposing that it ought to be merged with the WSWS article and then researching myself out of that point of view. Socialism as a minority viewpoint is not comparable to flat-earthism as a fringe viewpoint. --Nixin06 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is when it comes to movie reviews. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to take that as a request for examples of RS. Here are specific and general sources referring specifically to Socialist viewpoints in film criticism. --Nixin06 (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter, Walsh is a nobody, and WSW is not an RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The WSWS is a RS for Walsh's analysis. Admittedly, it might have a conflict of interest in establishing his credentials as a socialist film critic. But n+1 is a RS that recognises him as such. It even states that, "he and his colleagues are the only regular reviewers of movies in North America who are also avowed socialists, the only ones who cover filmmaking from this perspective on a daily basis". --Nixin06 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, you do not get to bootstarp yourself that way. If Walsh was notable (which he is not),it wouldn't matter where he was published, but since he's not, the notability has to come from the source - as in any shnook hired as a reviewer by the New York Times is automaticaly notable. But the WSW is not notable, and not, in general, a reliable source. so there's no pathway to notability, and no way you're getting this stuff into articles. This is my last comment, I'm tired of going around in circles with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, calling the WSWS unknown is obviously wrong, and that's reflected in discussions that have occurred here in Wikipedia. I've reverted your string of deletions. I disagree that Wikipedia can or should establish some sort of independent notability, but in the case of the WSWS generally, or Walsh in particular, none of us can change its position as the major socialist publication globally.
- Nixin06, I haven't gone through all your edits, but Beyond My Ken is correct to point out that single purpose accounts are not permitted on wikipedia, for obvious reasons. I agree with your user page's stated position on the WSWS, am glad that you have no conflict of interest (note that there is a process for that), and would encourage you to keep editing if you are adding valuable content for readers. In general I find your comportment more balanced than Beyond My Ken, but be careful to maintain a neutral perspective. I believe that when noting the WSWS as a source of commentary you are doing fine. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Darouet, thanks for looking this over. As you suggest, it is difficult to remain neutral when making edits on minority viewpoints and I appreciate the oversight of other editors. Regarding SPA, there is a sense in which I do have to plead "guilty": my interests are mainly (if not exclusively) in the workers movement, including its history and culture. However, my understanding is that this is a legitimate form. --Nixin06 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with editing on workers' movements (if you can contribute that's great). Sometimes people affiliated or working for specific organizations set up accounts on Wikipedia explicitly for the purpose of promoting their organization, and Beyond My Ken suspected you of doing that for the WSWS. If you read the WSWS as a news source and edit on that basis, you just need to realize that their viewpoint is a minority one within the context of both American and global news: if you are adding an opinion, you should note that it's from a socialist perspective, and you should consider adding other perspectives to make articles balanced. -Darouet (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Darouet, thanks for looking this over. As you suggest, it is difficult to remain neutral when making edits on minority viewpoints and I appreciate the oversight of other editors. Regarding SPA, there is a sense in which I do have to plead "guilty": my interests are mainly (if not exclusively) in the workers movement, including its history and culture. However, my understanding is that this is a legitimate form. --Nixin06 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, you do not get to bootstarp yourself that way. If Walsh was notable (which he is not),it wouldn't matter where he was published, but since he's not, the notability has to come from the source - as in any shnook hired as a reviewer by the New York Times is automaticaly notable. But the WSW is not notable, and not, in general, a reliable source. so there's no pathway to notability, and no way you're getting this stuff into articles. This is my last comment, I'm tired of going around in circles with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The WSWS is a RS for Walsh's analysis. Admittedly, it might have a conflict of interest in establishing his credentials as a socialist film critic. But n+1 is a RS that recognises him as such. It even states that, "he and his colleagues are the only regular reviewers of movies in North America who are also avowed socialists, the only ones who cover filmmaking from this perspective on a daily basis". --Nixin06 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter, Walsh is a nobody, and WSW is not an RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to take that as a request for examples of RS. Here are specific and general sources referring specifically to Socialist viewpoints in film criticism. --Nixin06 (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is when it comes to movie reviews. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't write the Walsh article. I did add some external links, after initially proposing that it ought to be merged with the WSWS article and then researching myself out of that point of view. Socialism as a minority viewpoint is not comparable to flat-earthism as a fringe viewpoint. --Nixin06 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Significant". Please show that these review from unknown reviewers (you could only find one passing reference to Walsh in a RS, for instance, for his article, which really should be deleted as non-notable) in a fringe website are "significant" in any way. They are not and, in fact, your pushing them is an attempt to bootstrap them into some degree of significance. NPOV does not mean that we represent every possible point of view about everything, that would be ludicrous, we'd have to include the opinions of flat-earthers about Eraserhead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)