User talk:Hoohoolian

Recent edits to 1725 in science

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the 1725 in science article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Capitalismojo (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Emmanuel Goldstein has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Emmanuel Goldstein was changed by Hoohoolian (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.8622 on 2018-05-18T04:32:40+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of common misconceptions, 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. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a self-published blog that says nothing about the quality of the translation is insufficient. Please see WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:INTEGRITY. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) "Self-published blog"??? WTH??? Do you dispute the translation or the statement that the translation error is done in the KJV and not the NIV? Why do you really have a problem with these facts that I have posted? They are not in dispute by anyone but YOU. I have published truth and fact. What harm is my post?[reply]

Hi Hoohoolian, and thanks for your email. On reflection, my message above appears flippant, and I apologise for that. It's good that you're trying to help, and I'm glad you're on board.

By "self-published blog" I was following the wording used at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper); I meant no disparagement. The guideline explains why such sources are generally not used in Wikipedia.

But whether that source reliable is moot, as the source does not support the content you're adding. It gives the translation "Do not murder", but says nothing about whether "Do not kill" is equally acceptable. What you need is a strong source, perhaps multiple strong sources, that explicitly explain that "Do not kill" is a incorrect, and that only "Do not murder" is correct. Strong sourcing is important throughout Wikipedia, but it's especially important in a page like List of common misconceptions, where we're essentially saying "All the sources that claim x are wrong; the truth is y." We can't say that unless we have sourcing that's much stronger than all the sources that claim x.

It sounds like you were right to challenge the tweet, so good catch. (Tweets actually are acceptable sources in a few circumstances, delimited here.) Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so poor sourcing in one article cannot justify poor sourcing in another article.

I hope that helps. To be clear, I'm not challenging the content of your addition. I'm just trying to uphold Wikipedia's sourcing requirements in an article where sourcing is especially important. You might be able to find help at Talk:List of common misconceptions or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible.

Best wishes, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and sorry for the late response. I've been busy in real life.

If you want your proposed addition to be retained, here's some advice:

Stop suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you is agenda-driven, or finds your addition offensive. Neither is true, and neither will inspire others to help you.
Stop citing this source. As I've tried to explain above, it does not support your argument.
Calmly suggest the addition at Talk:List of common misconceptions. But don't start by writing all your thoughts on the topic, and then looking for references that support you. Instead, start with reliable sources, and then write only what is explicitly supported by those sources. Your mindset should not be "Why can't these people see what is self-evidently true?" It should be "What reliable sources clearly state that Do not kill being a commandment is a misconception?"

List of common misconceptions is a difficult article to make additions stick, and it's possible that your suggestion will be rejected even if you follow my advice. Good luck. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]