Gawaon

Much ado about nothing?

Hi. You've reverted my edit claiming insufficient sources twice (including after I pointed to an external wiki). I don't really understand your reasons. I have a couple of points to make:

• We're talking about a visual cultural allusion in a video game. What do you want here as "evidence"? A screenshot from the game?
• You're making subtle alterations to the article's form, leaving non-advice about possible improvements, that essentially say "guess what I have in mind". If that was meant to be helpful, it was not.
• Do you want to discourage people from making small edits based on what they noticed? Wasn't all this supposed to be based on good will and assuming the good will of others?
• Based on our short exchange and on a glimpse of your interactions with others, I sense a passive-aggressive attitude on your part, trying to micromanage the areas of Wikipedia, that you feel responsible for.

I don't know what your deal is with all this. I'm leaving you with the question of whether this is the kind of community you're trying to build. Or do I completely misunderstand your motives, in which case I'd be curious to know what they are. Wsgac (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I do indeed hope that it's not just me; we should all do our part to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a collection of random trivia, and that's frankly not an easy task. And I'm far from the strictest editor in that regard; see MOS:POPCULT for what's the official line. Personally I tend to be way more permissive, but the minimum for adding a game or similar pop culture reference to an article is that it's mentioned as relevant in some reliable publication, say in a review of the game in an independent magazine. I don't doubt that it's true, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is big, but it's still not big enough to accept every true fact (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).

So what's needed is that people considered it important enough to explicitly write about it in some independent medium. The wiki you linked is not enough, since we don't accept wikis as reliable sources (yes, that includes Wikipedia itself). Moreover, I suppose it tries to cover more or less every detail of the game, while to establish that something is sufficiently notable to include, we need the very opposite: a source that's sufficiently selective to mention just some particularly relevant elements, and yet includes the beanstalk connection among them. If you have that (and it's reliable), we're good to go. Gawaon (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Siete Partida

Boswell, John. *The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance*. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988, p. 329: “Pater famis necessitate confectus, potest filium vendere; vel pignorare si eum habet in potestate; mater vero non potest. Item si pater est in castro obsessus potest ob dictam necessitatem filium comedere.”; “E aun ay otra razon por que el padre podria esto fazer: ca segund el fuero leal de Espafia, seyendo el padre cercado en algun Castillo que touiesse de Senor, si fuesse tan cuytado de fambre que non ouiesse al que comer, puede comer al fijo, sin mala estanca, ante que diesse el Castillo sin mandado de su Senor. Onde, si esto puede fazer por el Senior, guisada cosa es, que lo puede fazer por si mismo”.

There were a few entries where I might have forgotten to include secondary literature the primary sources were crossrefernced from when I blockquoted them years ago. Thanks for removing those and I'll try fix them when I got time, but it seems quite uncivil to mass deleting other entries without verifying them. ~2026-22156-54 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The primary sources were simply wrong in most of the cases I checked. But thanks for the secondary reference to the Siete Partidas case; it's somewhat hidden in the primary text, but with that additional reference it seems acceptable. Gawaon (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Link box rendering wierdly

You reverted this edit of mine, citing that "old placement is fine and matches the actual link target". This is correct, my apologies (i parsed the wikitext incorrectly). The link box is placed correctly in the wikitext, but it still renders in the incorrect spot, at least on my end (it renders just beside the H:SECTIONLINK link box, does it do that for you as well?). Is this able to be corrected? Thanks! -CRR- | talk 10:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and I noticed that your edit didn't make a difference in that regard. I suspect that it's related to the "Linking and page manipulation" menu shown on the right side, with the link box somehow moved under it. But I have no idea whether and how it could be fixed. You could ask on Help talk:Link instead, maybe that'll yield further insights. Gawaon (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#cite_note-13 A June–December 2020 proposal to capitalize "Black" (only) concluded against that idea, ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It concluded against the idea to make that obligatory in all articles, but not against the idea to permit it as local policy – which is exactly what the statement you're trying to remove says. Plus the note is not there by chance or by some arbitrary editing, it was the result of a discussion that took place nearly a year ago. If you want to challenge it now, you'll have to start a new talk page discussion and achieve consensus. Gawaon (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much of a discussion or consensus there, on the contrary one user writes "That is not how I read the results of that discussion. I read it as either Black and White or black and white is acceptable, but that Black and white or black and White is not." ~2026-27503-96 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

But they accepted the edits to the page and so did everyone else watching it, so it's WP:EDITCON by now if nothing else. Plus the statement added to the page didn't change anything substantially, it only clarified the results of earlier discussions and RfCs, which are otherwise buried deeper (but still findable for anyone who goes looking), such as in that admittedly hard-to-understand explanatory note after it. Gawaon (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello. You recently reverted my edit on Edmund Kemper's article, and I wanted to understand the issue. First, though, I'd like to thank you for the feedback. I'm just starting to edit Wikipedia articles, so feedback and explanations about what to do and what not to do are very valuable right now.

The edit in question was made because the explanation for the rites Kemper performed on his younger sister's dolls differs between what is stated in Vronsky's book and what Kemper himself said in his 1991 interview. I believed that adding the note would make readers aware of this contradiction without implying that Kemper is a reliable source -- so much so that I added it as an explanatory note.

Your comment on the reversion was: That would need a reliable source and anyway, a comment by Kemper himself is probably less trustable than a statement from a well-researched reliable source

I agree that Kemper himself is a less reliable source and that his statements should be seen with skepticism -- and that is exactly why I think the note should exist: so readers are aware of the contradiction in his speeches. Also, while Stéphane Bourgoin is definitely not a reliable source considering his history, that does not invalidate the interview itself or my note, since I am referring specifically to Kemper's statements, not Bourgoin's interpretations of them.

I can agree, for example, that the note may have needed a better explanation, perhaps explicitly pointing out that Kemper is not a reliable source and possibly listing other contradictions in his statements across interviews and hearings. Since Kemper is notoriously contradictory, it might even be better, for example, to add an entire section listing all known inconsistencies in his speeches.

My intention was not to assert that Kemper’s speeches are reliable in any way, but simply to document that he later provided a different explanation in a published interview.

Again, I appreciate the feedback, and if I am really committing a mistake at any point, I would genuinely like to understand why and learn how to improve my Wikipedia edits so I can avoid similar mistakes in the future! Daniel Nunes Teixeira (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi! No worries, we're all still learning. Some of what you're proposing looks like original research (OR), but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. I don't know Vronsky's book and can't vouch for its reliability, but – as you note – it's likely more reliable than Kemper himself, who has an obvious interest in downplaying the events. And Vronsky's book, published later, may already have taken Kemper's interview into account and weighed other evidence as more meaningful. Nevertheless reporting a "contradiction" between the book and Kemper would amount to doing OR by implying we have reasons to doubt the book's findings. But that's not our role; let the experts weigh the evidence.

If there were two reliable sources in clear contradiction, noting that disagreement (in an explanatory note or similar) could be appropriate – certainly better than deciding which is "right", which we shouldn't do. But since Kemper is not a reliable source, I don't see that situation here. Gawaon (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you so much, I am going to remember it next time! Daniel Nunes Teixeira (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Please review

Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?#Obligation. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes? I don't remember having visited that page before, but I didn't find anything surprising there. Gawaon (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)