User talk:Xxthedeathlordxx

User Talk

Undoing changes on Shanitah Namuyimbwa

Hey, I am currently in touch with the subject of this Wikipedia and she would like it authored under her birthname - Latifah Namuyimbwa. Would you please let her have this? CharityDelmus (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any way of knowing for sure that that is the article subject, and, either way, that gets into autobio territory and primary sources. al of the reliable secondary sources we have indicate the prior name. Also, getting the subject involved is a bit suspect, given that there was potential COI editing by the subject in the past. See Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Xxthedeathlordxx (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a general principle, article subjects should not get involved in their own article. This can also constitute original research. Even if it is true, it isn't currently verifiable. Xxthedeathlordxx (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Xxthedeathlordxx! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The FAIR Article

You made a massive oversight with your reversion of my edits. It is obvious that the article itself poisoned the well and gave an arbitrarily high amount of precedence to the SPLC's words. By putting them in quotes and clarifying their statements, I was making it more neutral instead of making them the arbiter of reality as you attempted with your reversion of my edit. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:DOUBT and WP:SPLC. The SPLC is considered reliable, but generally requires attribution, as had properly been done. Furthermore, quotation marks generally only be used on direct quotes, and never to instill doubt about the information within them. Xxthedeathlordxx (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't agree that the SPLC is reliable and I view their inclusion on that list of "reliable sources" as Orwellian. Second, the quotation marks were put in place to avoid false and contentious accusations as well as a way to undo the well poisoning. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in a source does not make it unreliable. The attribbution of statements to the SPLC is to clearly state that a group that may be biased is making such a statement. The inclusion of the SPLC as a reliable source is due to community consensus, meaning that the community as a whole considers it reliable with attribution, much more democratic than Orwellian. Xxthedeathlordxx (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Deep Canvas

Hello, Xxthedeathlordxx. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deep Canvas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]