User talk:Woodroar

Hi

Hi. Participate in this discussion. thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UEFA_European_Championship_records_and_statistics#%22Semifinal_appearance%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Xoomia:, thank you for the message, but I have to ask: why me? I've never edited that article before and I'm not a member of WikiProject Football. In fact, I don't even watch football. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford Student and Cherwell

I can easily find other sources for O'Neill's views regarding freedom of speech. However, the student papers seem to have been the only ones covering the protests over his 2018 visit. I am not using them to make controversial claims - I am using them to verify that Oxford students protested O'Neill's 2018 visit. This should not be an issue.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an issue, as protesting someone for their views is inherently controversial. We need high-quality sources to support such a claim regarding living persons. Additionally, if only one source is reporting on the situation, that's a sign that it's an undue or minority viewpoint. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, what if I reframed the wording to say that "In 2018, Oxford student newspapers reported that..."?--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If reliable, secondary, independent sources—that is, not the student newspapers but reputable sources reporting on them—have covered this situation, that might be fine. But it would really have to be widely reported, by several sources at least, to be DUE. Considering the number of reverts you're currently at, I would strongly suggest trying to workshop any phrasing on the Talk page rather than adding it yourself—which would likely be seen as further reverts. Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed that you just removed a large amount of content from the article because it used "primarily sources". You are aware that linking to primary sources is perfectly fine when it's used to reference the subject's stated views, right? Those links were citing op-eds when talking about the subject's point-of-view, which is the only time that it's acceptable to cite op-eds. Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views? From reliable, secondary, independent sources. Coverage from reliable sources is what makes a person's views worth mentioning here. In most other cases, we don't care. See WP:SPS, for example. If O'Neill were a subject matter expert on homosexuality, racism, religion, environmentalism, etc., then we might care. But he's a pundit. And keep in mind that, per policies like WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can never use his self-published sources to support claims about other living persons. Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Brendan O'Neill

Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, I'd never heard of Brendan O'Neill until I saw the recent thread on RSN. He does appear to meet our notability requirements so I'm glad that the article exists. What I care about most is that the article complies with all of our policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to claims about living persons. That includes requiring top-tier sources for claims that are controversial or negative, balancing the weight of sources, and fairly summarizing what reliable sources say. I have no problem removing poorly-sourced controversial/negative claims from articles about people I dislike, or, for that matter, removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles about people I like. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Brendan O'Neill (columnist). Going forward, please use the article talk page for all discussions about the article. Woodroar (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)