User talk:Duncum
Welcome![edit]
|
How Wikipedia works[edit]
Check the links posted above. We cannot include content not supported by reliable sources as per our policy WP:V. I'm the wife of XYZ, so I know how my husband died...
No, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. I know a few people personally that have articles in Wikipedia, but I cannot add content based on my own experiences. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Fylindfotberserk. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Refrain from making personal attacks like this. I told you more than once, Wikipedia has some rules. We cannot put unsourced information into article. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bobby Duncum Jr., without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Lololololol! Haha! Calling out facts you don't like don't consist of an attack, your so soft! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncum (talk • contribs) 19:20, December 22, 2019 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Civility is an important aspect of how this community editing project works. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, like calling people "soft", "marks", "control freaks", etc. We expect editors to be civil, even when we disagree, so mocking, trolling, laughing, baiting language is very unhelpful. Please also note that although it can be frustrating, when someone reverts content you contribute, it's not a commentary on you as a person, it merely means that another editor has disagreed with the content you've submitted for one reason or another. If content you've submitted has been reverted, the burden is on you to open a discussion to seek consensus for inclusion, otherwise you would be engaging in edit-warring, which is not something the community tolerates. In the event someone reverts your content because it was unsourced, you would need to provide a quality reference to support that content. Again, it's nothing personal—we just require our content to be adequately sourced. We can't just go by what you personally know to be true, because all content must be verifiable, and there's no way to verify someone's personal knowledge. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- So glad you responded. When an editor picks a battle and keeps editing out factual information never before published on the internet, what do you want people to use as a source when the medical examiner is not even sufficient... Many things he's citing are factually incorrect. How do you create FACTS never before published on the internet, the thought that this community only relies on that is bizarre? You'd think the community would be more interested in actual facts then BS that has been posted incorrectly to the internet. This is a huge flaw in your system. Why should a widow not be able to use legal documents as a source? This guy keeps harassing me by publishing false information. Why is that ok with administrators? What should I do, create a website, publish the documents then source that, really? Perhaps that's the solution. This is just victimization all over again. Let my husband rest for heaven's sake let my family have a say! Don't people have any feelings?Duncum (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Duncum
- Hi there, I've moved your response from my talk page back here so that the conversation stays neatly in one place. I'd appreciate if you'd please respond below.
When an editor picks a battle and keeps editing out factual information never before published on the internet, what do you want people to use as a source when the medical examiner is not even sufficient...
No editor has picked a battle. Having unsourced or improperly sourced content removed is a totally normal part of our Bold, Revert, Discuss process. I understand that because you were very close to the subject, this is frustrating to you, and that is partly why the community prefers that people not edit subjects they are related to, as it is difficult to write objectively about subjects we care about. That said, I certainly believe your facts about Mr. Duncum. I will say though, as someone unrelated to the dispute, that I don't know if I see the immediate value of having too much detail about Mr. Duncum's death, particularly when that content is making a veiled accusation that Dr. Andrews is responsible for Duncum's death. That is potentially libelous. If there were lawsuits about the matter and only if a secondary source (like a newspaper) reported on it could we then consider including something about that. As for the rotator cuff surgery, I've asked our reference desk to see if anyone can verify a newspaper article I found about that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)- Duncum, I don't understand why you claim that the current sourced version :
died of an analgesic overdose on January 24, 2000.
is "false information", when the immediate cause of death, the painkiller/analgesic overdose part was kept by you in your version of the edit here. I objected to your unsourced allegation on Dr. Andrews. This kind of defamatory content against a doctor, that too after almost two-decades would need widely published WP:Independent secondary source(s) as explained by Cyphoidbomb. Your own website wouldn't do in this case. As for your comments on Wikipedia having a "huge flaw" for not letting people write unsourced content, you should understand that Wikipedia is not a forum, but an Encyclopedia. I've already posted a huge list of instructions on how Wikipedia works to guide you through, but you chose to harass me. Wow! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Duncum, I don't understand why you claim that the current sourced version :
- Hi there, I've moved your response from my talk page back here so that the conversation stays neatly in one place. I'd appreciate if you'd please respond below.
- So glad you responded. When an editor picks a battle and keeps editing out factual information never before published on the internet, what do you want people to use as a source when the medical examiner is not even sufficient... Many things he's citing are factually incorrect. How do you create FACTS never before published on the internet, the thought that this community only relies on that is bizarre? You'd think the community would be more interested in actual facts then BS that has been posted incorrectly to the internet. This is a huge flaw in your system. Why should a widow not be able to use legal documents as a source? This guy keeps harassing me by publishing false information. Why is that ok with administrators? What should I do, create a website, publish the documents then source that, really? Perhaps that's the solution. This is just victimization all over again. Let my husband rest for heaven's sake let my family have a say! Don't people have any feelings?Duncum (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Duncum
- Hi there, I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Civility is an important aspect of how this community editing project works. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, like calling people "soft", "marks", "control freaks", etc. We expect editors to be civil, even when we disagree, so mocking, trolling, laughing, baiting language is very unhelpful. Please also note that although it can be frustrating, when someone reverts content you contribute, it's not a commentary on you as a person, it merely means that another editor has disagreed with the content you've submitted for one reason or another. If content you've submitted has been reverted, the burden is on you to open a discussion to seek consensus for inclusion, otherwise you would be engaging in edit-warring, which is not something the community tolerates. In the event someone reverts your content because it was unsourced, you would need to provide a quality reference to support that content. Again, it's nothing personal—we just require our content to be adequately sourced. We can't just go by what you personally know to be true, because all content must be verifiable, and there's no way to verify someone's personal knowledge. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)